SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. J D A APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very outset it will be proper to state the question which arises for determination in this case and it is as to whether the Tribunal constituted under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, the JDA Act) has power to punish for disobedience of its orders? The above question arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner, Santosh Sharma claims to be the member of National Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and his case is that he was allotted a plot by the said housing society and the number of the plot is SB-2 situated just opposite the building of Officer Tribunal School (OTS) on the Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Jaipur. Before the land of Khasra No. 22 situated in Jhalana Doongari came to be in possession of the housing society it belonged to one Triloki Nath Sahney and according to the petitioner the said land is not in any acquisition proceedings and Shri Sahney had obtained the permission of the Revenue Authorities for construction of a residential house in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the year 1964. Plot No. SB-2 which is said to have been allotted to the petitioner by the housing society is the place where the house is said to have been constructed by Shri Triloki Nath Sahney. THE petitioner is said to have completed his house in the year 1983 and according to the petitioner the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, the JDA) started interference in his possession over the land and demolished certain old construction in contravention of the provisions of Section 32 of the JDA Act without giving any notice to him. THE housing society filed a civil suit against the JDA. It also filed an application for temporary injunction in the civil suit No. 7/1986. Learned Addl. Civil Judge under his order dated July 26, 1986, restrained the JDA from interfering in the possession of the housing society over the land. Yet another interference was made by the JDA in the year 1990 in the possession of the petitioner specifically over his plot No. SB-2 and against the aforesaid intended action of the JDA the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the JDA from restraining it from interfering in his possession over the said plot and demolishing the house. A application for temporary injunction was also filed and the JDA was restrained and was directed to maintain status quo. THE JDA issued notice to the petitioner asking him to remove the verandah allegedly on the ground that the said verandah has been constructed in contravention of the order regarding maintaining status quo. THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under its order dated February, 7, 1991, restrained the JDA from demolishing the construction and the said order was confirmed on February 25, 1991. One Shri P. P. Upadhyaya, Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the JDA, was appointed as Commissioner and he inspected the site and submitted his report.

(3.) A bare reading of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC will show that the said provision is applicable to a suit and the proceedings under the JDA Act cannot be said to be a suit and cannot be equated with a suit. But that does not end the matter. A reference to Section 141 CPC will show that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. Therefore, if any proceedings are pending or are taken in any court of civil jurisdiction, then by virtue of Section 141 CPC the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure shall be followed and in that case even the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1,2, 2a CPC in my opinion will be applicable. This court is of the opinion that the power to punish for contempt is a different power than the power to punish for disobedience of the order made under order 39 CPC, because so far as power of this Court to punish for contempt is concerned, it is confined to punish for contempt of the order of this court, civil as well as criminal contempt, as well as to punish for the contempt of the order of the courts subordinate to it. In the present case, this court is not concerned with the power of this court to punish for contempt in so far as offence of contempt, if any, committed in relation to. the order made by the Tribunal and as said earlier, a limited question involved in this case is as to whether or not by virtue of Order 39 Rule 2a CPC the Tribunal has jurisdiction to take action for disobedience of its stay order which was issued and confirmed for maintaining status quo. In my opinion, if the JDA Tribunal can be said to be a court of civil jurisdiction by virtue of Section 141 CPC, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1,2,2a CPC will be applicable and for the disobedience of its order it can take action against the persons who have disobeyed the order made by it.