SHIVA SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission and I.A.No.2589/04 for substitution/bringing the name of the Collector in the case record. Tahsildar in Revenue case No. 17-A/68-85-86 passed an order on 19- 05-1986 against the petitioner directing him to vacate the land in which house and Ara machine has been installed by him, as the said land belongs to the Government and has been encroached upon by the petitioner. The petitioner, challenging the said order filed a Civil suit bearing No. 90-A/91 for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the State Government. The said suit was dismissed vide Judgment and decree dated 14-02-1995. Aggrieved by that Judgment and decree, petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Civil appeal 15-A/1995. The appellate Court fortified the orders passed by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal vide Judgment and decree dated 30-4-2002. Against that Judgment and decree passed by the First appellate Court, Second appeal bearing No. 177/2002 has been filed before the High Court. This Court on 16/05/2002 directed the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to the Ara machine, as it exists today i.e., on 16/05/2002. During the pendency of the Second appeal, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO)) Durg issued a show cause notice No. 5098 dated 03-07-2004 to the petitioner for cancellation of renewal of license. The said notice was replied by the petitioner. DFO vide order dated 19-07-2004 cancelled the license of Ara machine and ordered to close the same. The petitioner's contention is that the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 16-05-2002 directed to maintain the status quo, despite that the officials of Non-applicant/State Government have willfully dis-obeyed the said order and passed an order regarding cancellation of license and closing the Ara machine and thereby the State Government through the Collector, Durg has committed the offence punishable under contempt of courts Act 1971.

(2.) VIDE I.A. No. 2589/2004, the petitioner has made a prayer that earlier in the original petition, the name of the Collector has not been mentioned, therefore, his name may kindly be brought on record. Section 2 (B) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as below : Section 2 (b) - " "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of or undertaking given to a Court; " Revenue authorities on finding that the land over which Ara machine has been installed belongs to the Government, initiated the proceedings and passed an order to that effect. The suit for declaration of title over the said land filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the trial Court. First appellate Court affirmed the said judgment and decree and dismissed the appeal. Against that, the second appeal has been preferred and is pending. The land over which Ara machine is installed, whether it belongs to the petitioner or to the Government is to be determined and to save the petitioner's removal or to protect his possession, this Court on interim stage passed the following order on 16-05-2002 :-