1 S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.254/2007 Roshan Lal Mathur vs Om Prakash Date of order : 2.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.AK Rajvanshy, for the petitioner. Mr.PS Bhati, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. As the contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner who was party in SBCWP No.991/2004 decided by this Court on 26th April, 2007 and according to the petitioner the order of this Court passed in the above writ petition dated 26th April, 2007 has been flouted by the respondent-contemnor. Following is the operative part of the order dated 26th April, 2007 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.991/2004: “In the interest of justice and to protect the disputed land from encroachment, it is ordered that petitioner Department may construct boundary wall only upon the disputed land. However, it is made clear that it will not create any right in favour of the petitioner and possession upon the 2 disputed land will be subject to the final decision of the suit. Further, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit and suit may be decided preferably within a period of one year.” According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permitted the petitioner – the Union of India and its department to construct “boundary wall” only upon the disputed land. The respondent under the garb of this order, not only constructed the boundary wall but has put a sign board declaring the property to be property of the Central Wool Development Board. The respondent also put their employees on the land in dispute and for that purpose, they also put one tent and one teen shed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner by this, the respondent has flouted the order of this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner took loan upon the property in dispute from the bank and when this sign board was put by the respondent on the property in dispute and respondent's employees were put in possession of the plot, the bank has given notices to the petitioner to repay the loan. The respondent submitted reply and stated that they raised the construction of wall as permitted by this Court and also put the sign board and a tent and 3 teen shed only to see that no other encroachment may be made upon the land and according to learned counsel for the respondent the property is required to be protected not only from the encroachment which can be made by the petitioner or his fellow but also by other persons and therefore, the act was done only to protect the property and the respondent is not claiming any right on the property on the basis of their this act and is only intending to protect the property. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the photographs placed on record as well as the reply filed to the contempt petition. The order itself is very clear and has been passed with clear indication that the order is passed to protect the disputed land from the encroachment as the specific language in the operative part of the order has been used. Putting a sing board and a tent in the facts of this case cannot be treated to be an act willful disobedience of this Court's order and the grievance of the petitioner may be due to fact that the bank who financed the petitioner on this property, may have issued notices for repayment of the loan amount, but that is absolutely irrelevant fact for the purpose of deciding this contempt petition. 4 In view of the above, I do not find any reason to proceed with the contempt petition. Hence,the contempt petition is dismissed and the notice is discharged. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-