MOHD ZAHEER SIDDIQUI Vs. MOHD UMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful contempt, alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties, of the order dated 17.5.1978 passed by the Sessions Judge. Barabanki and the order dated 23,12.1999 issued by this Court.

(2.) In short, the petitioners' case is that they and their ancestors have been in possession of the sahan land as shown in the sketch map, Annexure-1. from the times immemorial. To the south of the petitioners' sahan land is an open pathway and to the further south thereof, the land of galla mandi lying vacant. In the year 1977. one Atahar All. a local politician, who harboured ill-will against the petitioners and their father, made an attempt to create a bogus dispute that the land of the courtyard and that of the pathway was part and parcel of galla mandi. At the instance of the said Atahar All. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who was also the then Administrator of the town area, initiated proceedings under Section 133. Cr. P.C. against the petitioners' father on the basis of there being alleged obstruction on the public land. The petitioners' father denied the allegation of there being any public land in north of the pathway but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected his claim aide order dated 24.12.1977. The petitioners' father was compelled to file a revision against the order dated 24.12.1977 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sessions Judge, Barabanki allowed the revision vide judgment dated 17.5.1978 and stayed the proceedings which could not be carried out until the existence of any public right was established by the decree of a competent civil court. In view of the said judgment, the Town Area Committee filed a civil suit against the petitioners' father in the Court of Munsif, Ram Sanehi Ghat, which was decreed and even the first civil appeal preferred against the Judgment was dismissed. Being aggrieved against the said decrees, the petitioners' father filed Second Appeal No. 329 of 1984, which is still pending before this Court. Vide order of May 15, 1984, the operation of both the Judgments and decrees was stayed by this Court. As the second appeal is pending and the interim order is operational, the Town Area Committee had no authority to take the law into their own hands and forcibly dispossess the petitioners from their sahan land. In spite of the fact that there was a stay order of the Court, the officers and the contractor of the Town Area Committee interfered with the petitioners peaceful possession over the land in dispute on 20.12.1999 by unloading mounds of sand and bricks. The petitioners warned the contractors and the officers of the Town Area Committee and apprised them of the order of May 17. 1978. of the Sessions Judge and also the order dated 15.5.1984 passed by this Court. However, the contractor, with a view to harass the petitioners appeared bent upon flouting the orders. Under these circumstances, the petitioners were obliged to file a Writ Petition bearing No. 5713 (M) of 1999 which was dismissed by this Court on 23.12.1999 with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo for six weeks. The petitioners could not obtain a certified copy of the said order as the Court was closed for winter vacation, and it was only after the Court was opened in the first week of January. 2000. that they were able to obtain certified copy of the aforesaid order and then served it upon the opposite parties. In the meantime, the opposite parties were also conveyed orally the factum of the said order. The District Magistrate. Barabanki and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Barabanki. were also orally apprised of the said High Court's direction but this too did not yield any result. Obviously thus the opposite parties have committed blatant and contemptuous disobedience of the orders of this Court as well as that of the Sessions Judge.

(3.) The opposite parties filed their separate counter-affidavits denying the allegations of the petitioners. The opposite party No. 2 Arshad All, who was the contractor of the Town Area Committee, asserted in his counter-affidavit that he filed his tender regarding the earth work brick soaling and nali works upon the land of Grain Market. His tender was accepted by the Town Area Committee, Dariyabad and he was asked to take up the work and complete it by 31.12.1998. In order to carry out the directions and further to comply with the contractual obligations, he started the work, did it day and night and completed it on 27.12.1999. The measurement of the work was conducted by the Junior Engineer and he submitted his final bill. He received his payment by cheque on 31.12.1999. Arshad AH denied specifically that he was ever communicated by the petitioners of any Court's order. He also denied that any petitioner ever met him in this connection.