HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 225 of 2008 Hari Mohan and others. …Petitioners Versus Sohan Lal and another. …Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: June 22, 2011: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition, under Section 12/14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for punishing the opposite parties/respondents for deliberately flouting the order of this Court dated 30.08.2006 passed in Second Appeal No. 6 of 2002 ‘Sohan Lal and another vs. Hari Mohan and others’ as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 30.07.2007 passed in Special Leave to Appeal no. 4081 of 2007. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that plaintiff (respondents herein) instituted a suit no. 231 of 1979 before the Munsif, Rishikesh, District Dehradun for injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s over their land of plot no. 276/24, measuring 2.14 acres, situated in Rishikesh, District Dehradun, which was contested by the defendants and ultimately the suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 2 13.11.1986. The plaintiffs preferred First Appeal no. 65 of 1986 against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1986, which was dismissed by 2nd Addl. Civil Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 24.12.1992. Being aggrieved by the order of 1st Appellate Court, the plaintiffs filed Second Appeal no. 6 of 2000 (old no. 702/1993) before this Court and this Court also vide order dated 30.08.2006 dismissed the Second Appeal. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 30.08.2006, the plaintiffs preferred Special Leave to Appeal no. 4081 of 2007 before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, which ultimately resulted into dismissal of the SLP on 30.07.2007. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners asserted that as a consequence of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court dated 30.07.2007 all right title and interest over Khasra no. 276/49 and 276/6/37 are, thus fallen in favour of the petitioners and the plaintiffs have no right or title left in the property in dispute. Now the plaintiffs are trying to create political duress and in order to pave their way, they have moved representation-seeking demarcation of the land in question. Learned Senior Advocate contended that issue of demarcation could not, at all, be agitated before a Minister and such application is not maintainable. Apart from the fact, the controversy could not have been reopened or re-agitated when the impact of Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 had already been considered by this Court while parting with the judgment dated 30.08.2006 in the Second Appeal. He vehemently contended that any administrative or political decision could not have overridden the judgment passed by this Court, which stood confirmed by Hon’ble the Apex Court. 3 Moreover, the three-member committee has issued direction to restrain the parties not to make any altercations over the land in dispute and the Tehsildar concerned, without providing any opportunity and without considering the entire facts, has proceeded to pass an order on 14.11.2008 to hold demarcation of the land in dispute. Thus, apparently the respondents have indulged themselves to an intentional contempt and they are liable to be punished for contempt of the orders passed by this Court as also the orders passed by the Apex Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the plaintiffs has declined the allegations as made by the petitioners and submitted that the plaintiffs have not flouted any of the orders passed by this Court. In their counter affidavit, the plaintiffs have not disputed the proceeding which took place in the manner so specified, but they took plea that the defendants purchased another piece of land of Khasra No. 276/50 from one Jogeshwar Prasad and taking undue advantage of the fact that the land of Khasra No. 276/49 is situated in between Khasra No. 276/6/37 and 276/50, which left no option to the plaintiffs except to move application for demarcation before Revenue Authority in order to separate and locate the boundary of Khasra No. 276/49. Taking cognizance on the matter, the District Magistrate, Dehradun vide order dated 12.11.2008 passed order for demarcation at the site, which does not mean that it runs counter to the judgment of Civil Courts and is in disobedience thereto. Further, since the demarcation of both the plots requires to be done by the Revenue Authorities in order to settle the dispute, the District Magistrate vide its order dated 4 12.11.2008 constituted a team, with direction that till the demarcation is completed, status-quo shall be maintained, so that demarcation proceedings may be completed and both the plots may be identified and located. It is asserted in the affidavit that it is not the case of defendants that they are the owner of Khasra No. 276/49. Thus, moving the application for demarcation before the Revenue Authorities, did not amount contemptuous act on the part of the plaintiffs. He submitted that the petitioners have chosen wrong forum, as they have efficacious remedy available either to approach to a writ Court or to approach to the Execution Court raising such plea in the execution proceedings, if not initiated earlier. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the entire record, this Court is of the view that while dismissing the Second Appeal no. 6 of 2000, this Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, and the Second Appeal was dismissed on account of findings on issue nos. 1 & 2 of the Courts below. However, filing of a contempt petition is not a proper and efficacious remedy. The suit was for simple injunction alleging that defendants intend to encroach upon the land of plaintiffs. Same was dismissed. Appeals also dismissed. Therefore, there is nothing on which basis it could be said that contempt is made out. Infact, this Contempt Petition is misconceived. Inevitably, the power conferred under Contempt of Courts Act must be exercised cautiously as it bestows limited scope to be exercised. It restricts to travel beyond its jurisdiction. Power conferred under the Act empowers the Court to see 5 as to what order of the High court has been violated. When this Court merely affirmed the orders of the Courts below, the matter has exclusively been diverted to the trial Court. It cannot be inferred that order passed by this Court has been flouted in the manner as alleged by the defendants. Moreover, if the petitioners have new cause of action, which can be retrievable, they may seek appropriate remedy available to them under the law. In these circumstances, this Court does not find that any contempt is made out in flouting this Court’s order 30.08.2006 or the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 30.07.2007. The contempt petition fails and is dismissed as such. 7. Contempt notices issued against the respondents stand discharged. (V.K. Bist, J.) 22.06.2011 NCM: