Delhi High Court
Om Prakash @ Dharam Singh vs Raj Singh & Ors on 25 November, 2014
Author: V.K. Shali
Bench: V.K. Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Cont. Cas (C) No.282/2014
Decided on : 25th November, 2014
OM PRAKASH @ DHARAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate.
versus
RAJ SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 13.2.2009.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Chhoto Devi, Raj Singh and Preet Singh have filed writ petition against Financial Commissioner, Consolidation Officer and few others, who were private respondents. One Om Prakash, the present petitioner, was respondent No.8 in the said writ petition.
3. It seems that the order of the Financial Commissioner in the said writ was assailed before this court by Chotto Devi. While issuing notice to show cause as to why the matter may not be admitted, the court was pleased to pass an order to the effect that till the next date of hearing, that is, 16.4.2009, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the residential plot No.132 (2-2) and a factory plot No.79-F (0-6) situated in the extended Abadi of Village Bamnoli, New Delhi.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Om Prakash, is that for the present the petitioner is confining his present contempt petition only with regard to residential plot No.132 measuring 2 bighas and 2 biswas. It is his case that so far as the respondents are concerned, it was not the case of Chhoto Devi and others that they were in possession of the plot of land. It is also stated that the court had passed an order that the parties shall maintain status quo meaning thereby that both the parties were to get their hands off from the residential plot of land.
5. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on 4.2.2012, he had found that the respondents in the contempt petition had starting tilling the land for the purpose of cultivation, which is in total disregard to the ad interim order dated 13.2.2009; however, on the basis of the said order, he did not take any action for initiating contempt action as the matter was sorted out with the intervention of certain respectable members of the village whereupon the respondents had assured the present petitioner that they will abide by the ad interim order.
6. It is also alleged that without keeping their assurance, on 2.10.2013, the respondents again forcibly tried to trespass the land and cultivate the same. A police report in this regard was also made by the petitioner on 4.10.2013 with SHO, Dwarka. Because of these reasons, the present contempt petition has been filed. The petitioner has also placed on record the photographs at page Nos.15 and 16 wherein a parcel of land is shown to have been ploughed with the help of a tractor. It is, accordingly, contended that the respondents be proceeded under the contempt law and action be taken against them.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record.
8. In the first instance, cause of action accrued to the petitioner for proceedings under the contempt law on 4.2.2012, when the respondents, even if it is assumed according to the case of the petitioner, had tried to till the land for the purpose of cultivation. The petitioner ought to have come to the court within a period of one year from the date of 4.2.2012 rather than trying to wait for subsequent conduct of the respondents.
9. Therefore, as the petitioner has not approached the court within a period of one year, which is to be reckoned from 4.2.2012, the present petition is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
10. Even if this point is ignored, the factum that the petitioner noticed on 2.10.2013 that the respondents had tilled the land with the help of a tractor, as is alleged by the petitioner, in my view, that does not tantamount to changing the status quo of the plot of land. The status quo of the plot of land essentially means that the possession and the title of the property is to be continue with the same persons with whom it continued at the time of passing of the order. Simply by ploughing the land or standing or parking of a vehicle or some goods would not, in my view, tantamount to disobedience of the order of status quo passed by the court.
11. I, accordingly, feel that the present contempt petition has been filed essentially only to bring to bear pressure on the respondents to have a settlement. No action can be taken on the basis of these allegations. Accordingly, the contempt is dismissed and the contempt notice is discharged.
V.K. SHALI, J.
NOVEMBER 25, 2014 'AA'