BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT PETITION (Civil) No. I "^ /2010 ^' (Arising out of order dated 12/3/2010 passed in W. P. No. 1030/2003 by single bench of this Hon'bte Court consisting of hton'ble Justice Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra) PETITIONERS ^?.,^^7 A /S/ / ^y/0 .:...••'. ^ /^ y/' /V y.^1' y <y /^w^^%. /^l^xn^, \ f^ifea^tA^' ^ /• t¥^^^' / ^ ^' 5. z' ^ 7. Sardar Jasbir Singh, S/o Sardar Surjeet Singh, aged about 60 years, Manjeet Singh, S/o Late Kripal Singh, aged about 46 years, Harvinder Singh, S/o Late Kripal Singh, aged about 54 years, Sarbjeet Singh, S/o Late Kripal Singh, aged about 32 years, Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, W/o Sarabjeet Singh, aged about 38 years, Smt. Kiranjeet Singh, W/o Sardar Manjit Singh, aged about 36 years, Harpreet Singh, S/o Sardar Jasbir Singh, aged about 24 years All are reSident of Guru Nanak nagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) All represented through Power of attorney holder Sardar Jasbir Singh, S/o Sardar Surjeet Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o Gum Nanak nagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^\R \^ CONTEMNOR Ramdas Agrawal, S/o Seshram, aged about 62 years, Presently R/o Flat no.23, Girnar Plaza, Infront of Patidar Bhawan, Near Hanuman Mandir, Timber Market, Mandi Road, Devevdra Nagar, Fafadih, Raipur. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. HIOHC^mTQFaa^TTISGARHjiBHASPUR S.B._: HON'BLBSHRIMANINDRAMOHANSHRWASTAVA.J. Contemot Petition IQ N0.126/2010 PETITIONBR8 RESPONDBNT ^* Sardar Jastnr Singh & Ors. Ver»u» Ramdas Agrawal Petitloa u/Article 215 of tii®G<nMrtitutioa of JstAia. r/W Section 12 otthe Coatemot ofCourtaAct Appearance: Shri Anoop Majumdar, coiinsel for the petitioner. ShriY.C. Sharma, counsel for fhe respondent. ORAL- (Passed on 10.02.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner allegaig willful disobedience of the order dated 12th March, 2010 passed by this Court m W.P No. 1030/03. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted fhat in a civil Utigation, the petitioners had prayed for declaration in respect of suit property, which comprised of an open land and they had also prayed for grant of tnjunction, wliich was refused by the trtal Coiirt as well as by the AppeUate Court, leading to f5Ung of Writ Petitlon No. 1030/03 before this Court. In the writ petition, an appUcation for grant of interim rellef was made, praying that proceedtngs before the Court below be stayed and respondents be -2- <*ss/f./ ^ ..^ ~'^^^5^^"' restrained from alienating, creating third party interest or chan^ng fhe nature of the siiit property in any mamier. This Court on 12ttl March, 2010, recorded statement ofthe counsel for fhe pe^ioners that if fhe suit land is alienated, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and directed that sfatus quo with regard to the suit property be malntained by both the parties till the next date ofhearing. 4. Leamed 'counsel for the petitioner contended fhat after the order was passed by fhis Coiirt, respondent-contemnor handed-over the possession of the suit property to some other persons and construction was started over fhe suit laad. On 28.4.2010, when the petitioner No.l arrived at fhe spot, he found fhat labourere were employed and some constractions work i.e. wlute washfaig of fhe building, leveling ofland was in pro^^ss. The (x>ntemnor was informed about flie stay order of the Court and the matter was reported (Annexure C-4). Ttiereafter, fhe contemnor stopped the further work on the spot and assurance was given by him fhat no substantial construction work would be taken-up. Thereafter, fhe contemnor again, through Ms employees, started construction of mardage hall/marriage lawn. It is the submission of leamed coiinsel for the petitioners that the kind ofactivity, which is going on the disputed land, indicated from the photographs, shows that some intemal approach road is beiag constructed and certain constniction material is also shown on the spot, which imlicates that fhe respondent is proposing to make scmie fcind of <a&, ^^^-^^ & ^ -3- ^.-.s^ ('•' construction on the disputed property. In his submission, fhis has resulted in utter violation of status quo order passed by this CoUTt 5. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel for fhe respondait/contemnor submits fhat fhe possession of fhe land is with the respondent since long and the respondent has neither alienated the land to any person nor has crated any third party interest tn any mamier. His further submission is fhat ftie son of the contemnor is a registered A-5 Contractor and fhe suit property is being used for parking of trucks, dximpers, road- rollers, tractor eta and other machineries and for stortag the raw- materials. He further submits fhat it is the petiticmer who made an attempt to disturb the possession of the coiatemnor, whereupon the contemnor submitted an appliGation In fhe police station. It is also submitted fhat the all^ation of construction of marriage hall or marriage lawn is hypothetical and not correct It is submitted fhat fhe contemnor, against ftie act of (he petitioners, by which an attempt has been made to Ibrcibly dispossess fhe contemnor fi"om the suit property, ^veral reports lodged in fhe police station and a Criminal Case No.961/08 has also been registered against some of the petitioners, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. He submits that it is fhe petitioner No. 1 who has damaged the boundary wall. 6. From the entire pleadings, affidavits, photographs and matoAal which have been placed on record, there is no material to show %>.. / •^^•" ^ h1^^- 4- Rraveen thaf the respondent have either aUenated the property or created third party interested. The petitioners have not piaced on r^ord any documentto fhat effect. In SQ far as fhe nature of suit land is concemed, from fhe averments made in the petition and fhe photographs which have been placed on record, aU fhat it appears that certain leveling work, intemal approach road has been carried out and there are certain vehicles and materials for construction seen on the spot At fhis stage, it would be too ©arly to say that aU ttiese activities amount to altering tfae natiare of suit property, even if it is assumed that ftie interim order of stextus quo intended not even to alter the nature of liie suit< property. It is not tihe case of fhe petitioner fhat they wwe dispossessed by fhe rcspondent aSter fhe interim order. The order of status quo was passed by this Court on an apprehen^on expressed before the Court fhat respondent may aBenate the suit property. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, (he mateiial placed on record by the petitioners, do not, at this stage make out any case for coming to fhe conclusion that ttiere has been disobedience of fhe order passed by fhis Court on 12.3.2010. Therefore, I am not inclined to initiate any contempt proceedings against the respondent on the basis of materiedwhich have been placed before fhis Court. 7. The rule is accordingty discharged and the petition is di^nissed being devoid ofany substanoe. — Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge