LAWS(P&H)-1977-5-7

S TEJA SINGH Vs. RAM LAL

Decided On May 03, 1977
S.TEJA SINGH Appellant
V/S
RAM LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER any ancillary order directing the change of the physical possession of land can be passed in the exercise of the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the primary issue of some significance in these two connected appeals.

(2.) FOR the purposes of this judgment it is unnecessary to get enmeshed in the details of the tortuous litigation extending over a period of two decades betwixt the appellants in these appeals. It would suffice to mention that the main plank of the appellant Teja Singh rests on the order of the Deputy Custodian General passed way back in the year 1954 whereby he had directed the allotment of an area measuring 11 S. A. 9f U. in village Bassi Daulat Khan to the petitioners before him after cancelling the same from the name of the respondents. A spate of litigation followed between the parties subsequent to the order above-said and after passing through the mill of Rehabilitation authorities the matter was ultimately brought to this Court in three separate writ petitions. The decisions rendered therein were the subject-matter of two appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) THEREAFTER Teja Singh appellant brought a petition Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act because of the alleged refusal of the respondent-officials to implement the order of the Deputy Custodian which according to him had been wholly upheld by the judgments of this Court in the proceedings referred to above. Respondent No. 1 Shri Ram La] Naib Tahsil-dar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Hoshiarpur district, however, in his return took up the plea that he had implemented the order of the Deputy Custodian in letter and spirit and had duly directed the delivery of possession to Teja Singh appellant, in accordance with the judgments of this Court which followed. However, he pointed out that even in the order of the Deputy Custodian General, it was nowhere mentioned that the appellant Teja Singh would continue to retain an area of 2 S. A. and 8f U in village Mar-auli Brahmanan.