COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.400 of 2006 Date of decision: May 30, 2008. Labh Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Attar Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sanjiv Peter, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Contempt Petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, has been instituted, inter-alia, alleging that notwithstanding the injunction order dated 26.4.1999 passed by this Court in RSA No.1247 of 1999, COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 2 :- whereby the 1st respondent (along with Bhagat Singh s/o Ram Singh and Kuldeep Singh s/o Gurdial Singh) was restrained from alienating the land in dispute till further orders, a substantial part thereof, measuring five and a half acres, has been sold of by way of registered sale deed dated 22.2.2006 (copy appended as Annexure P-1). [2]. The facts may be noticed briefly. [2.1] The 1st respondent (Attar Singh) filed a declaratory suit against the petitioner and some other persons to the effect that he is an owner to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land comprising in khewat No.9/9, khasra Nos.6//13 (8-0), 25//4/2 (4-16), 5/1 (6-0), 6 (8-0), 7/1 (3-12), 15/1 (6-0), 41//4/2 (7-10), 5/3 (6-13), 6 (8-0), 71/41 (4-16), 15/1 (3-7), 42//8/2 (1-9), 10/2 (7-0), 13/1 (5-13), 14/1 (3-8), 46//13/2 (3-13), 17(3-0), 76(0-8), 105(2- 0), 128(0-2), Khewat No.10/10, khasra No.11//33 (4-6), 6//8/3 (2-7), 17/2 (1-13), 18/2 (0-3), 14/1 (2-0), 23/3 (0-6), 24/1 (3-10), 11//5/2 (4-13), 11/1 (0-11), 21//16/2 (4-8), 16//3 (2-4), 25(6-16), Khasra/Khatauni No.12/12, Khasra No.37//24/2 (0-11), 46//15 (8-0), Khewat No.13/13, khasra No.46//7 (8-0), 8/1 (3-16), Khewat/Khatauni No.14/14, Khasra No.46//6/2 (5-0), 14 (7-19), 16(3-17) and Khewat No.15/15, khasra Nos. 6//24/2 (6-18), situated within the revenue estate of village Chao Majra, Tehsil Kharar (now in Tehsil SAS Nagar (Mohali), District SAS Nagar (Mohali). The suit was decreed by the civil court at Kharar and the said judgment and decree were further affirmed by the first Appellate Court also vide its judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998. Aggrieved, the petitioner, along with others, filed RSA No.1247 of 1999 (Karori Singh & Ors. v. Attar Singh & Ors.) in this Court along with Civil Misc. No.2380-C of 1999 for the grant of ad- interim injunction. While issuing notice of motion, this Court issued an ex- COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 3 :- parte injunction order dated 26.4.1999 whereby the 1st respondent, Bhagat Singh s/o Ram Singh and Kuldeep Singh s/o Gurdial Singh were restrained “from alienating the property in dispute till further orders”. Admittedly, the ad-interim injunction order is still operating and the Regular Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court after hearing both the parties. [3]. It is a matter of common knowledge and not in dispute as well that the subject-land now falls within Tehsil Mohali, adjoining the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The land is not only useful for agricultural purposes only but has great potential for urbanization/commercial activities. Market price of such kind of lands have multiplied many-folds. The land Mafia has obviously developed a keen interest in the subject land. The facts on record also indicate as to how the unscrupulous property dealers have been able to lure the litigating farmers to sell off their lands even at the cost of brazen violation of the interim orders passed by this Court. [4]. The petitioner has specifically averred that respondents No.2 to 5 are 'Real Estate Dealers'. There appears to be some substance in the petitioner's contention as the 3rd respondent operates from Shop-cum-Office situated in Sector 70, Mohali, i.e., a place beyond the reach of an ordinary farmer/agriculturist. 2nd and 4th respondents are real brothers whereas the 5th respondent is their associate. [5]. On 20.12.2005, the 1st respondent, against whom the restraint order from alienating the property in dispute was passed by this Court on 26.4.1999, entered into an 'agreement to sell' (copy appended as Annexure P-4) in favour of respondents No.3 and 4. The agreement to sell appears to be cleverly drafted with misleading description of the 'khewat/khatauni' and 'khasra' numbers of the land ostensibly to create the plea of “bona fide” COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 4 :- purchasers. It is further recited that the land “is free from incumbrances and there is no litigation pending in respect of this land”. According to the said agreement, a sum of Rs.15 lacs was paid to the 1st respondent as earnest money and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed on 20.2.2006 in the name of the GPA holder “or in the name of his nominee”. [6]. The petitioner, however, came to know about the above stated 'agreement to sell' and rushed to this Court by way of COCP No.160 of 2006 which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on 3.2.2006. The petitioner thereafter served the 1st respondent with a legal notice dated 18.1.2006 (copy Annexure P-5) and sent copies thereof to:- (i) Tehsildar, Mohali; (ii) Gurdeep Singh (respondent No.4); and (iii) Narinder Singh (respondent No.3). In their reply-affidavits, respondents No.1, 3 and 4 do not dispute the receipt of the legal notice. The petitioner specifically informed in the above notices about the restraint order passed by this Court and that their proposed action was contemptuous in nature. Besides this, the petitioner also sent a representation to the Estate Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Mohali informing him that the 'agreement to sell' dated 20.12.2005 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 was illegal, null and void. [7]. Having realized that the execution of the sale deed would entail the consequences like contempt of this Court but being in no mood to give up their plan, respondents No.3 got executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 14.2.2006 from the 1st respondent in his favour as well as in favour of Baljit Singh (respondent No.2) (appended as Annexure R2/2 by the 2nd respondent with his reply affidavit). It is recited in the GPA that COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 5 :- respondent No.1 was unable to look-after his share in the property, therefore, he had appointed 2nd and 3rd respondents as his 'general attorneys', who were further authorized to deal with the same, including execution of the sale deed in respect thereto. [8]. On the strength of the above stated GPA, respondents No.2 and 3 executed the offending sale deed on 22.2.2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby land measuring 5-1/2 acres has been sold to respondents No.4 and 5 for an alleged sale consideration of Rs.30 lacs. [9]. As noticed earlier, respondents No.2 and 4 are real brothers. While one of them became the vendor along with respondent No.3, the other assumed the role of vendee. The afore-said sale-transaction has given rise to these contempt proceedings. [10]. On 31.3.2006, show cause notice was issued to the respondents as to why proceedings for committing Contempt of this Court be not initiated against them. Upon consideration of their reply affidavits and after hearing their learned counsel, this Court vide order dated 15.12.2006 held respondents No.1 to 3 prima-facie guilty of willfully and deliberately breaching the restrain order passed by this Court. Vide a subsequent order dated 30.5.2007, respondents No.4 and 5, who are beneficiaries of the offending sale transaction, too, were held prima-facie guilty and since they did not appear despite service, their presence was secured through bailable warrants. At that stage, respondent No.1 also disappeared and his presence too was secured through non-bailable warrants. [11]. Vide an order dated 20.5.2008, the respondents, as prayed for by them, were given an opportunity to purge the contempt. [12]. In response thereto, some of them have filed their additional COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 6 :- affidavits to shed crocodile tears as they claim to have purged the contempt by cancelling the 'General Power of Attorney' and the 'agreement to sell' executed by the 1st respondent. Needless to say that after execution of the sale-deed dated 22.2.2006 in favour of respondents No.4 & 5, the said GPA had already been rendered infructuous. The respondents No.2 to 5, however, gave an impression as if the sale deed once executed, could not be cancelled. To ascertain the truth, the Sub-Registrar, Mohali was directed to be present in Court. He appeared on 26.5.2008 and made a statement that the sale deed, if so directed, can be cancelled. One more opportunity was, therefore, given to respondents No.2 to 5 to take an appropriate and effective action in the matter which was, however, not acceptable to them. [13]. In these circumstances, Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and material on record has been perused. [14]. Any willful disobedience to a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, tantamounts to 'civil contempt'. It is well known that a person shall be guilty of breach of a prohibitory orders even if the order was not officially served provided that it is established on record that he had notice of the order and he knew that it was meant to be enforced. [15]. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the first respondent already knew about the prohibitory order passed by this Court and it was also brought to the knowledge of respondents No.3 & 4 by way of a registered legal notice. The 2nd respondent happens to be brother of respondent No.4 whereas the fifth respondent is their co-beneficiary. Each one of them, thus, is alleged to be guilty of willful and deliberate breach of the injunction order. COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 7 :- [16]. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has come up with a plea that he is an innocent villager who is alleged to have been 'duped' by the 'land Mafia' comprising of respondents No.2 to 5 and that the GPA/Sale-Deed were got executed from the 1st respondent by concealing the facts and in a fraudulent manner, without paying any sale consideration. [17]. As against it, Learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 5 refutes the allegations made by the 1st Respondent and contends that while respondents No.4 and 5 are bona-fide purchasers who have paid a hefty amount towards the sale consideration, respondents No.2 and 3 have already 'purged' the contempt as the GPA and 'agreement to sell' have now been revoked/cancelled. [18]. Respondent No.1, 3 and 4 in their reply or additional affidavits have not denied the receipt of the legal notice (Annexure P-5). The injunction order dated 26.4.1999 passed by this Court restraining the 1st respondent from alienating the suit land was, thus, very much within their knowledge. Despite that, respondent No.3 – who appears to be in the business of Real Estate, did not hesitate in securing the GPA in his own favour as well as in favour of the 2nd respondent. On the strength of the said GPA, they became the 'vendors' and executed the sale deed in favour of non-else than the real brother of respondent No.2, i.e., respondent No.4 and their associate, namely, respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 has chosen not to file any separate affidavit to deny his knowledge regarding the interim order. With these unrebutted facts on record, there can be no other conclusion but to hold that each one of the respondents had full knowledge of the 'injunction order' passed by this Court, yet in flagrant COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 8 :- violation thereof, they got executed the deeds/documents one after the others. All the respondents are, therefore, guilty of committing the 'civil contempt' of this Court. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that due to its location near UT Chandigarh, the subject property has gained steep hike in price. Uncontrolled greed appears to have led the respondents to take this misadventurous step with a misconceived notion as if the money power is mightier than the rule of law. [19]. Notwithstanding the contemptuous action of the respondents, it was deemed appropriate to give opportunity to them to restore the injunction order and obey it in its true letter and spirit. Instead of showing any remorse for their misconduct, respondents No.2 to 5 rather attempted to mislead this court by suggesting the cancellation of the 'GPA' and 'Agreement to Sell' executed by the 1st respondent in their favour. In other words, they still wanted to keep the offending sale-deed intact. That being so, the unconditional apology, which lacks repentance, too cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected. [20]. To be fair to Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 5, he has placed heavy reliance upon an order dated 18.12.2006 passed by this Court while disposing of COCP No.531 of 1992 (Balwant Singh v. Balwant Kaur & Ors.). That was a case where despite pendency of the contempt proceedings for a period of about 14 years, the contemners – vendors (Balwant Kaur and Bachan Kaur) were untraceable and their whereabouts were unknown. In those circumstances, the contempt petition was disposed of with a direction to the vendees who had purchased the land in violation of the injunction order that they “shall not be permitted to take the plea of bona fide purchasers...”. The facts and circumstances of the COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 9 :- aforesaid case were, thus, totally different. [21]. It is well known that public has interest in the effective and orderly administration of justice. This Court owes a duty to protect the afore-said interest of the public for which it has been clothed with the power to convict for contempt of court, not only to protect its own dignity against insult or injury as is oftenly suggested, but also to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. [22]. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have been heard on the quantum of sentence also. No mitigating circumstance of any nature has been pleaded or proved. The manner in which the respondents have acted in connivance with each other, dissuades this Court from showing any clemency or taking a lenient view. Consequently, each of the respondents is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The order of sentence, however, shall remain suspended for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order so as to enable the respondents to prefer any appeal, if so advised. [23]. There remains yet another crucial question as to whether the contemners can be allowed to enjoy and/or retain the fruits of contempt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1996)4 SCC 622, held as follows:- “17. The principle that a contemner ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well settled. In Mohd. Idris v. Rustam COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 10 :- Jehangir Babuji this Court held clearly that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that the court is not entitled to appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. The petitioners had given an undertaking to the Bombay High Court. They acted in breach of it. A learned Single Judge held them guilty of contempt and imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment. In addition thereto, the learned Single Judge made appropriate direction to remedy the breach of undertaking. It was contended before this Court that the learned Judge was not justified in giving the aforesaid directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court. The argument was rejected holding that “the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate direction to close the breach (of undertaking)”.” [24]. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court, in Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S.Suppiah, AIR 1975 Madras 270, held that:- “where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice.” That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The court refused to recognize that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they should have been prior to the service of the interim order. The afore- quoted view has been expressly approved by the Apex Court in Skipper Const. Co.'s case (supra). [25]. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be seen that COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 11 :- despite an advance warning given by the petitioner through legal notice, the respondents went ahead to achieve their evil designs with a sense of bravado. The principle that 'what a contemner has unlawfully grabbed, must be lawfully snatched from him', applies here very aptly. The respondents cannot be allowed to tamper with the spirit and object of a court order and that too in such an outrageous manner that it might erode the public faith in the administration of justice. The growing tendency in a section of society that they can 'manage' or 'maneuver' the things the way they want, has to be curbed with iron hands. [26]. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, besides sentencing the respondents with simple imprisonment and fine, as directed above, this contempt petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i)the Collector and Sub-Registrar, Mohali are directed to cancel forthwith the sale deed No.4142 dated 22.2.2006 executed by respondents No.2 & 3 in favour of respondents No.4 & 5 in their capacity as holders of General Power of Attorney of respondent No.1; (ii) the stamp duty affixed on the sale deed shall stand forfeited; (iii) it shall be open to respondents No.4 & 5 to recover the sale consideration, if any, paid to respondent No.1 in accordance with law; (iv) The 'agreement to sell', if any, entered into by respondent No.1 in favour of other respondents shall remain intact but in abeyance leaving it open for the other respondents to seek enforcement thereof after the decision of RSA No.1247 of COCP No.400 of 2006 -: 12 :- 1997 and/or vacation of injunction order; (v) henceforth, the Collector and Sub-Registrar, Mohali are also restrained from executing any sale deed and/or Transfer-Deed in respect of the land in dispute till the injunction order passed by this Court is operative. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Shri M.C. Berry, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for information and necessary compliance. Dasti May 30, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge