IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. COPC No. 69 of 2008. Decided on: April 17, 2009. Ramesh Chand and others. …… Appellants. Versus Omkar Chand and others. …….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral). Heard. The present petition has been filed for taking action against the respondents under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for defying the orders passed by this court in RSA No.216 of 1983, decided on 23rd September, 1983. From the contention raised in this petition, it appears that the petitioners herein and respondents No.2 and 3 had the joint land regarding which the partition proceedings were initiated, but in between, these were dropped. Vide order dated 23.9.1983, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - the learned counsel for the parties agreed that either party shall be at liberty to get the same revived or to either file application afresh for seeking partition. It was further agreed that at the time of partition, the Revenue Officer affecting the partition shall not gave any preference to either party in respect of the existing construction standing on the joint land which for the purposes of partition shall be treated as joint construction of the parties. In case, however, the area of which the construction was raised fell to the share of the then respondent, Dasaundhi Ram, the father of respondents No.2 and 3 herein would be entitled to remove the construction without payment of any charges and in that case, the petitioners herein shall not claim any right over the superstructure. The counsel for the petitioners gave an undertaking on their behalf that the decree in appeal would not be executed. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, RSA No.216 of 1983 was not pressed, as such it was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners contended that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (Settlement) had approved the mode of partition on 1.11.1985 and partitioned the land vide order dated - 3 - 4.2.1988. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the said orders and filed an appeal before the Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, on the ground that the mode of partition was not adhered to by the Assistant Collector while ordering the partition and even the order passed in RSA No.216/1983 was ignored and he arbitrarily allotted the land comprised in khasra No.2051 to said Shri Dasaundhi Ram, the predecessor of respondents No.2 and 3. The Settlement Collector had accepted their appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with the direction to conduct the partition in view of the above facts, but that order was unsuccessfully challenged by respondents No.2 and 3 before the Commissioner and thereafter before the Financial Commissioner. Then, Dasaundhi Ram had filed CWP No.117/1993, which was also dismissed on 2.7.2003. It is contended that during the consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 27.9.2002 in case No.37/2002 under Section 30(2) of H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 with respect to the land comprised in Khasra No.2051 which became nullity in view of the order dated 10.1.2005, - 4 - passed by the Director, Consolidation, H.P. in case No.131/03 and the matter was sent to the Consolidation Officer for consideration and inquiry under Section 30(2) of the Act in the light of the order passed by the higher authorities. It is alleged that the respondent No.1, who was Consolidation Officer ignored the orders of the High Court despite the fact that it was brought to his knowledge, since he failed to implement it thereby committed the contempt. It is pertinent to note that order was passed by the Consolidation Officer in case No.7/2008 (Remand Case under Section 54 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1971) on 28.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) which does not contain any reference of orders of the High Court, however, keeping in view of division of the consolidation of land Scheme, he came to the conclusion that the land comprised in khasra No.2051 was rightly allotted to the respondents. It is a fact that respondent No.1 was not a party in the appeal before the High Court and there is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the High Court was with respect to the Khasra No.2051 and further that - 5 - the said order was also brought into the notice of respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners had also moved an application seeking permission to place on record the documents pertaining to this case whereby the petitioner had brought to the notice the orders of the High Court passed in RSA No.216/83 particularly with respect to Khasra No.2051. Though no affidavit in support thereof was filed yet the application was allowed. The petitioner placed on record an uncertified photocopy of a certified objection petition dated 4.9.2000 purported to have been filed before the Consolidation Officer. Even it did not show that the copy of order was placed before the respondent No.1 to make him aware of the order of the court. The another photocopy of the Objection Petition is dated 20.3.06 which also suffers from the same lacunae. Further as stated above the subject matter of dispute in RSA above could not be connected with the controversy in hand. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated at bar that against the orders of Consolidation Officer they have already filed an appeal. Therefore, in these circumstances, when the petitioners have prima-facie failed - 6 - to establish the defiance, I do not feel it a case to take any action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, as prayed for. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh ) Judge April 17, 2009. (Pds)