SHYAM MURARI BANSAL Vs. SHRI K S GALUNDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Biswedar in Tehsil Tibbi (district Sri Ganganagar) whose land, after coming into force of the Zamidari and Biswedari Abolition Act (for short, 'the Act') vested in the State Government on November 15, 1959. After the vesting of the land in the State Government, the application applied for allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land under the provisions of the Act in the year 1959. This application remained pending with the respondents and after a prolonged litigation, the Division Bench of this Court in a D. B. Civil Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner on July 19,1991, directed the State Government to allot to the petitioner the Khudkasht land upto the limit of fifty Bighas as per the Rules within twelve months from the date of the judgment. THE Collector, Sri Ganganagar, inspite of a specific direction given by the Division Bench of this Court, did not allot the land to the petitioner, rather ,by its order dated August 17, 1991, granted time to the Government Pleader to file a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order dated July 29, 1991, passed by the Board of Revenue. Dissatisfied with the order dated August 16, 1991, passed by the Collector, Shri Ganganagar, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court. This writ petition was allowed on January 20, 1992, and the respondents were "directed to make allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land in favour of the petitioner before July 18, 1992, in Chak 2 NWN or within the Tehsils of Tibbi or Hanumangarh, as the land is available with the respondent for allotment in these two Tehsils. " After the order dated January 20, 1992, passed by this Court, the petitioner and other fourteen persons, in whose favour the judgment was delivered, made application before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, for the allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land in their favour in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. THE Collector, Sri Ganganagar, vide its order dated July 2, 1992, in clear violation of the directions given by this Court, made allotment of fifty Bighas of command land to each of the fifteen applicants in colonisation Tehsil of Nachna in II Phase of Indira Gandhi Nahar Project. When the allotment was not made to the petitioner as per the directions given by this Court, the petitioner, therefore, moved the present contempt petition bringing it to the notice of this Court that the respondent-contemnor Shri K. S. Galundia the Collector, Shri Ganganagar, has flouted the order passed by this Court and, therefore, contempt proceedings may be initiated against him and he should be adequately punish for the same. THE notices of the contempt petition were issued to the contemnor Shri K. S. Galundia, the Collector, Shri Ganganagar who appeared in person and filed his reply. In the reply filed by the contemnor, he tried to justify his action in not complying with the directions given by this Court and stated that the allotment has been made as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated July 19, 1991, and a special appeal against the order of the Single Bench was filed which is still pending in this Court. Though in paragraph number 6 of the reply, it has been stated that the special appeal is still pending in the High Court, but in the concluding paragraph of the reply, relating to the prayer-clause, it has been mentioned that the special appeal, filed by the State, has been dismissed but the State Government is likely to take a decision to file Special Leave Petition against this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the limitation to file such Special Leave Petition has not yet expired. THE respondent, in the first paragraph of the reply, has, also, tendered unconditional apology.

(2.) THE short question, which requires consideration in the present case is: whether the respondent has flouted the order passed by this Court and acted in clear violation of the directions given by this Court and he is, therefore, guilty of the contempt of the Court? For constituting the offence of the contempt of the Court, wilful conduct of the contemnor is the primary and basic ingredient. It has, therefore, to be seen : whether the respondent has wilfully disobeyed, ignored or by-passed the judgment passed by this Court and did not comply with the directions issued by this Court? While pronouncing the judgment, this Court specifically directed the respondent to make allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land to the petitioner in Chak 2 NWN or within the Tehsil of Tibbi or Hanumangarh, as the land is available with the respondent for allotment in these two Tehsils. THE order passed by this Court is clear and unambiguous and the respondent-contemnor had the notice of the terms of the order. THE respondent, while making allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 2-7-1992, tried to consider the legality and validity of the order passed by this Court as if he was sitting in appeal and observed as under: - "the order of the Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court has already been challenged in Division Bench which could not come-up for hearing. According to me, the matter is sub-judice. THErefore, I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has no choice except to allot the land of Chak 2 NWN in Tehsil Hanumangarh. " In the judgment, he further observed as under: - "without meaning any disrespect to the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 20-1-1992, I am of the view that the land of Chak 2 NWN, Tehsil Hanumangarh, does not fall in Category IV of Section 13 (1) of the Rajasthan Zamidari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959, and, therefore, it cannot be allotted to the petitioner. " ". . . It is an admitted fact that the land of Chack 2 NWN is required by the Ministry of Defence. THEy have revived their earlier intention for allotment, on which correspondence is pending between the State Government and the Ministry of Defence. Looking to the public interest, also, it will not be advisable to allot this land to the applicant. "

(3.) THE Court has a duty to protect and vindicate the rights and interests of the litigating public in the due administration of justice and to punish the guilty for the contempt so that the administration of justice is not obstructed or interfered with. In the general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority of the Courts should not be imperilled. If the directions of the Courts of Law will be so flouted and their authority is ignored and is supplanted then the very structure of the ordered life will be at risk. Instances of non-compliance of the Court's directions are being multiplied and it is, therefore, necessary to curb such tendency so that there may not be any recurrence of such type of conduct. THE Courts are generally slow in using their contempt jurisdiction and it is highly painful for punishing for committing the contempt of the Court, but when such a responsible officer of the State Government, who is the Head of the District Administration, shows scant regard to the judicial directions issued by the Court and deliberately and malafide refused to follow it by observing that the land in Chak 2 NWN cannot be allotted to the petitioner then such painful duty has to be performed by the Court to up-hold the dignity and prestige of the Court, otherwise it would vitally shake and impair the judicial system of administration of justice as well as the faith of the people in the Courts. Officers of the State Government, howsoever higher they may be placed, are expected to exercise utmost vigilance in complying with the order passed by the Court. THE respondent, in the present case, has show a lack of respect of the Court's order and acted in opposition to the directions issued by the Court and brought the administration of law in disrepute and, therefore, imposition of fine in such case will not be sufficient and will not meet the ends of justice.