HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Majority Judgments:On Behalf Of Himself And Subba Rao J. ) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court dated August 18, 1958 by which the said Court found the two appellants guilty of contempt of Court and instead of committing them for such contempt, administered a warning to them and directed them to pay Rs. 50/- each as costs of the respondent Gurbachan Singh.

(2.) The two appellants before us bear the same name. One of them was the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirsa, District Hissar and the other Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Sirsa, same district, at the relevant time. In this judgment we shall call the Sub Divisional Officer as the first appellant and the Naib Tehsildar as the second appellant. The facts alleged against the appellants were these. One Budh Singh, a displaced person, was allotted some land in village Jagmalera, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar. The land allotted to Budh Singh was, it was stated by the appellants, forcibly occupied by the respondent Gurbachan Singh. The respondent was not a legitimate allottee and the appellants, who were concerned in their official capacity with the allotment and management of land for displaced persons, were naturally anxious to oust the respondent and deliver possession to Budh Singh of the land allotted to him. On May 9, 1958 appellant No. 1 made an order that Budh Singh and other allottees like him would be given possession of the lands allotted to them. The date fixed for such delivery of possession was May 20, 1958. On May 16, 1958. Gurbachan Singh and a number of other persons who were similarly threatened with dispossession filed petitions to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the action threatened against them. These petitions were put up before the learned Chief Justice on that very day, namely, May 16, 1958, when he issued an order staying delivery of possession till May 19, 1958, when the petitions were to come up for admission before a Division Bench. On May 19, 1958 the Division Bench extended the operation of the stay order until May 23, 1958. In the High Court the appellants did not dispute that the first order staying delivery of possession up to May 19,1958 was communicated to them on May 19, 1958 on which date the notice from the High Court reached Sirsa. It appears that a notice of the second order extending the stay of delivery of possession till May 23, 1958 was not officially communicated to the appellants till May 21, 1958. The allegation on behalf of the respondent was that on May 20, 1958, which was the relevant date, the two appellants were informed by certain interested persons, to whom we shall presently refer, that an extension of the stay order up to May 23, 1958 had been granted by the High Court. In spite of this information, however, the second appellant, in consultation with and under instructions of the first appellant, formally dispossessed the respondent and handed over possession of the land to Budh Singh.

(3.) In these circumstances the allegation on behalf of the respondent was that the two appellants had committed contempt of Court by disobeying the order of the High Court staying delivery of possession till May 23, 1958. The respondent made an application to the High Court for taking suitable action against the two appellants. This application was made on May 27,1958. On this application the High Court issued notice and after hearing the parties, Falshaw, J. (as he then was) who dealt with the application came to the conclusion that the two appellants were aware of the order of the High Court extending the operation of the stay order and yet they disobeyed the said order by dispossessing the respondent and handing over possession to Budh Singh. He held them guilty of contempt of Court, but at the same time expressed the opinion that the appellants honestly believed that they were not bound to hold their hands in the absence of an official communication of the High Court's order extending the operation of the stay order. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge instead of committing the two appellants for contempt of Court merely administered a warning to them and directed them to pay the costs of the respondent.