SEJUBEN WD/O RAICHAND BALUBHAI ODE Vs. SANGITA SINGH OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFICE, SECRETARY (APPEALS) STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court contending that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions contained in oral order dated 12.06.2014 in LPA No.2109 of 2009, which confirmed the oral judgment dated 25.01.2008 in SCA No.6665 of 2009, which in turn confirmed the decision of the Secretary of Revenue Department, Gujarat State in regularizing unauthorized encroachment of the petitioners into the 'gauchar' land of village Kotda.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under: -

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the Secretary of the State Government once having taken a decision regarding regularizing of the encroachment, the conduct of the officers of the State Government in contesting such an order of the Secretary before this Court till the Supreme Court is only with a view to harass the petitioners and is indirectly committing contempt. He also submitted that though the order of the Secretary of Revenue Department is of the year 1993, still resolution of the State Government is dated 01.12.2015 regularizing encroachment, but at the same time, valuing the disputed land at exorbitant rates applicable in the year 2015 is nothing less than committing of contempt whereby petitioners are prevented from enjoying fruits of their litigation. He strongly contended that such attitude of the officers of the State Government in dragging the petitioners in one after another litigation till the highest level is required to be deprecated in strong manner, as such officers used the Court proceedings as a tool to frustrate the orders of the Court itself. Learned Advocate for the petitioners relied upon judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936, Privy Council, page No.253(2) in support of his contention that the procedure which is required to be followed has to be necessarily followed and therefore, the directions which were issued by this Court should also be followed as if it is a procedure required under the law. In this judgment, the Privy Council was dealing with the conviction recorded for offence under Section 396 IPC, wherein the accused was sentenced to death, where the conviction was mainly based on the strength of the confession said to have been made by the accused before the Magistrate, of which evidence was also given by the Magistrate, but the statement was not recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, considering the nature of issue dealt with by the Privy Council, being far and wide from the issue under consideration herewith, applying ratio of the cited judgment to the facts of the case is improper.