AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.10 OF 2006 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1725 OF 2004 Azizuddin Kutubuddin Kazi & Ors. .... Petitioners Vs. Sirajali Davarali Jahagirdar & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioners. Mr. Girish R. Agarwal for respondents 7 to 11 and 15. Mr. S.G. Deshmukh for respondents 16 and 17. Mr. Girish Godbole with T.D. Deshmukh for respondents 18 to 22. Ms. V.R. Bhonsale, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. JUDGMENT:- (Per (Smt.) Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. AJN 2 2. The petitioners and respondents 1 to 6 are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004. The said writ petition was filed against respondents 7 to 15 in order to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra in R.T.S. proceedings. It was admitted by learned Single Judge of this court. Learned Single Judge granted interim relief and stayed the execution of the impugned judgment of the Revenue Minister. 3. According to the petitioners, without giving any notice to them and without their consent, petitioners 1 to 6 filed Civil Application No.2794 of 2005 on 13/9/2005 praying that they may be allowed to withdraw the said petition. On 2/12/2005, the said petition was dismissed as not pressed. The petitioners, therefore, filed Civil Application No.125 of 2006 praying that order dated 2/12/2005 may be recalled. On 20/12/2006, learned Single Judge issued notice to the respondents. Notice was made returnable on 1/3/2006. Both sides were directed to maintain status quo. Petitioners 1 to 6 in Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004 were impleaded as respondents 1 to 6 respectively in the said civil application. Similarly, all the original AJN 3 respondents 1 to 9 in the writ petition were impleaded as respondents 7 to 15 in the said civil application. 4. According to the petitioners, in view of the interim stay granted by this court while admitting the writ petition, the execution of the impugned order passed by the Revenue Minister had been stayed and, therefore, no further steps could be taken by the parties as well as the Revenue Authorities to mutate the revenue records of the lands in question, in accordance with the order passed by the Revenue Minister. Besides, since by order dated 20/2/2006 passed on Civil Application No.125 of 2006, this court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, the Revenue Authorities also could not have taken any action to implement the revenue Minister's order which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that they made an application to the Talathi, Nasik – respondent 17 herein making him aware of the order dated 20/2/2006. A xerox copy of the said application which bears the acknowledgment of the Talathi's office is annexed to the petition at Ex-B. It is the case of the petitioners that AJN 4 respondents 18 to 22, who claim to have development rights, published notice dated 12/2/2006 in Daily Lokmat that they intended to sell the said lands. The petitioners published a reply to this public notice in Daily Lokmat dated 24/2/2006 which is annexed at Ex-C to the petition. The petitioner informed respondents 18 to 22 as well as the public at large that this court had passed status quo order on 20/2/2006 and, hence, respondents 18 to 22 do not have any right or authority to enter into any transaction in respect of the said lands. 6. On 6/3/2006, respondents 18 to 22 through their advocate published an explanation in the newspaper stating that they are not party to Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004 and the lands they want to deal with are not the subject matter of the said writ petition. This public notice is annexed to the petition at Ex-D. Thereafter, the status quo order passed on 20/2/2006 was continued by this court till 7/4/2006. 7. According to the petitioners in spite of the status quo order on 18/3/2006, Circle Officer, Nasik Division, Nasik, respondent 16 herein certified Mutation Entry No.54936 in order to record the AJN 5 names of respondents 18 to 22 in relation to plot nos.1 to 3 in land Survey No.980/2B/1/3 to 7/A. The petitioners case is that land Survey No.980/2B is one of the lands which are the subject matter of Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004. This certification of mutation entry was made after respondent 17, the Talathi, Nasik, submitted report to respondent 16, the Circle Officer. According to the petitioners, since respondent 17 was made aware of the order of status quo by the petitioners, he could not have submitted report to respondent 16. When the petitioners came to know about the certification of mutation entry whereby names of respondents 18 to 22 came to be entered in the ownership column of the said land, the petitioners made an application to respondent 16 and requested him to maintain status quo and warned him that if he does not maintain status quo, action under the Contempt of Courts Act would be taken against him. This letter was delivered to respondent 16 in person and respondent 16 signed on a copy thereof in token of having received it. Copy of this letter is annexed to the petition at Ex-H. Respondent 16, however, did not respond to the petitioners' letter. 8. The petitioners contend that although respondents 18 to 22 AJN 6 are not party to Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004 or Civil Application No.125 of 2006, they were made aware about the status quo order and, therefore, they should not have entered into any transaction with other respondents in relation to the lands which are the subject matter of Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004. However, on 22/3/2006, respondents 18 to 22 gave a notice under section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 for permission to sell Survey No.980/2B/1/3 to 7/A - Plot No.31. By order dated 23/3/2006, Competent Authority, ULC, Nasik granted necessary permission to respondents 18 to 22. According to the petitioners, conduct of respondents 18 to 22 in making application to ULC Authority is in breach of status quo order dated 20/2/2006 passed by this court. It is contended by the petitioners that after obtaining permission from ULC Authority, respondents 18 to 22 have transferred some portion out of that land to individual plot holders. 9. Thus, the petitioners' case in short is that action of respondents 16 and 17 in certifying Mutation Entry No.54936 on 18/3/2006 and conduct of respondents 18 to 22 in making application to ULC Authority for permission to sell the said land and transferring some portion of the said land to individual plot holders AJN 7 after obtaining the said permission is in breach of status quo order dated 20/2/2006. The petitioners are guilty of willful and deliberate breach of the said order. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for a declaration that respondents 16 to 22 have committed contempt of this court. They have prayed that the respondents be punished under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 10. It appears that this petition was first taken up before learned Single Judge (Khanwilkar, J.) on 18/4/2006 for admission. Learned Single Judge passed the following order : “1. Heard. 2. Counsel for the petitioners fairly accepts that respondent Nos.16 to 22 against whom relief or initiating contempt action is prayed in this petition, were not parties to the proceedings before this court in which order dated 20th February, 2006 in Civil Application No.125 of 2006 came to be passed. He submits that petitioners be given liberty to pursue the remedy against the said respondents for having committed criminal contempt. Those proceedings will have to be heard by the Division Bench in terms of High Court Appellate Side Rules. Accordingly, office to place the matter before the appropriate forum. AJN 8 3. Liberty to apply.” 11. In view of the above order, this petition is moved before us. 12. We have heard Mr. Bandivadekar, learned counsel for the petitioners. He reiterated the averments made in the petition and contended that the respondents are guilty of criminal contempt and must be punished as per law. We have also heard Mr. Godbole, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 18 to 22. Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for respondents 18 to 22 contended that Mutation Entry No.54936 is outcome of Mutation Entry No.31240. Mutation Entry No.31240 is not challenged by the petitioners till date and, hence, it has assumed finality. Sale deeds have been executed by respondents 12 to 15 on 8/11/1993 and the same have not been challenged till date. Mutation Entry No.31240 is not the subject matter of pending proceeding. Hence, order of status quo dated 20/2/2006 did not affect Mutation Entry No.31240 and Mutation Entry No.54936 which is the outcome of Mutation Entry No.31240. Therefore, there is no question of any criminal AJN 9 contempt being committed by respondents 18 to 22. We have also heard Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 to 11 and 15. We have perused affidavits filed by the respondents. 13. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines “Criminal Contempt” as under : “2. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - (a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt; (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which - (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other AJN 10 manner. (d) xxx xxx xxx” 14. Mr. Bandiwadekar submitted that the respondents' conduct is covered by section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. He submitted that respondents 18 to 22 published notice dated 6/3/2006 in the newspaper stating that they are not party to Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004 and the lands which they want to deal with are not the subject matter of Civil Application No.125 of 2006. They have thus published a wrong statement to circumvent the status quo order dated 20/2/2006. They have, in fact, interfered with or obstructed the administration of justice by publishing the above statement knowing full well the existence of the said order. They have by publishing the above notice encouraged breach of this court's order. Mr. Bandiwadekar also drew our attention to affidavit of respondent 18 dated 22/3/2006 stating that no dispute pertaining to the said land is sub-judice in any court. He submitted that this is a patently false statement. Learned counsel urged that therefore, the respondents must be held guilty of criminal contempt and dealt with in accordance with law. AJN 11 15. Admittedly, respondents 16 to 22 were not parties to Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004 or to Civil Application No.125 of 2006. Order dated 20/2/2006 obviously binds those who are parties to writ petition. It is not an order in rem. It is an order in personam. It operates only upon those who were impleaded as parties to the writ petition and the civil application. Besides, from the affidavit filed by respondents 16 and 17 and on reading of Mutation Entry No.54936 we find that it was certified on 18/3/2006 on the basis of the Collector's order dated 28/6/2004 granting N.A. permission and approving layout plan. The Collector, Nasik, by his order dated 28/6/2004 granted N.A. permission. By order dated 7/2/2006, the Town Planning Officer, Nasik Municipal Corporation approved layout plan in respect of Survey No.980/2B/1/3 to 7. Since these orders were in force, they were recorded by Mutation Entry No.54936. In his affidavit, respondent 16 has stated that it is not correct to say that in view of Mutation Entry No.54936, the names of respondents 18 to 22 came to be entered in the ownership column of 7/12 extract of land R.S. No.980/2B/1/3 to 7/A. No new names were entered in the column of landholders by this mutation entry. Respondent 16 has further stated in the affidavit that all that AJN 12 was done was first to bifurcate the N.A. land from the agricultural land and thereafter prepare separate thirty two 7/12 extracts as per the plots sanctioned in the final layout plan dated 7/2/2006. From this affidavit, it is clear that by certification of Mutation Entry No.54936, no new rights are created in favour of any persons. 16. Having gone through the affidavits of respondents 16 and 17 and affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 18 to 22, we are not in a position to hold that the respondents are guilty of criminal contempt. The contempt petition will have to be therefore dismissed. We, however, make it clear that if any other civil proceedings are adopted by the petitioners inter alia, to establish their title or rights in respect of the lands involved in Writ Petition No.1725 of 2004, the court seized of the proceedings shall deal with them independently and nothing said by us in this order be treated as our expression of opinion on the merits of the case of the parties. 17. The petition is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] AJN 13 [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]