Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tikka Amar Singh Chandel vs Sh. Raj Kumar Singh And Another on 4 October, 2013
C.O.C.P. No.1478 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.O.C.P. No.1478 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.10.2013
Tikka Amar Singh Chandel
...... Petitioner
versus
Sh. Raj Kumar Singh and another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Petitioner in person.
Mr. J.S. Chandail, Advocate and
Mr. Surya Partap, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Ms. Shruti Goyal, A.A.G., Haryana.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
By this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for violating the orders dated 14.03.2002 and 05.07.2002.
On 20.08.2013 the following order was passed:-
"This contempt petition arises out of a title suit in which the petitioner had claimed that he had become Sharma Ashish 2013.10.07 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.1478 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the owner of the property belonging to Mian Ajmer Singh on the basis of the Rule of Primogeniture. Along with the suit a schedule of property had also been mentioned which comprised of, inter-alia 835 kanals 12 marlas of Village Bhanu, Hadbast No.234, now District Panchkula. Along with the suit the petitioner had filed an application for injunction restraining the respondents from depleting the corpus of the property either by alienating the same or by taking any compensation for any land which may have been acquired in the past or may be acquired in the future. Such injunction was in fact rejected by the trial Court, but in appeal the injunction was granted in the following terms:-
"In view of the above said discussion, it cannot be said that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The ld. trial Court has not appreciated the facts and the legal proposition in the correct prospective. The balance of convenience requires that the corpus should be kept intact till the present dispute is finally decided. So, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is accepted. It is ordered that the defendants (including present respondent) will not alienate the suit property in any manner during the pendency of the present. The defendants (including present respondent) will also not receive any further amount towards compensation for any part of the suit property which may have been acquired or which is acquired in future. The said amount of compensation may be deposited with the orders of the concerned court in any Nationalized Bank in any Scheme which could fetch the maximum interest. The said amount will only be disbursed as per the decision of this case."
Thereafter both the parties filed civil revision petitions in this Court and in CR No.3925 of 2002 the following order was passed on 05.07.2002:-
Sharma Ashish 2013.10.07 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.1478 of 2008 (O&M) -3-
"Status quo regarding alienation and disbursement of compensation till further orders."
It is alleged that thereafter the respondent No.1 had obtained compensation of `37,51,000/- on 04.04.2008 in violation of the said order.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 have argued that along with the suit the petitioner had filed a detailed schedule of property and the land for which compensation was obtained did not form part of the said schedule and consequently there was no wilful disobedience of any order of either this Court or of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Panchkula.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks a short adjournment to verify whether there is in fact any reference to the property (in respect of which now contempt is alleged) in the suit.
Adjourned to 13.09.2013."
Today the petitioner states that the property in respect of which the contempt has been filed though is not specifically forming part of the schedule yet in the civil suit he clearly mentioned that he was laying claim of entire property of his grand-father Mian Ajmer Singh and therefore it should be deemed that the respondents well knew that this property was also part of the schedule for which the Court had granted stay. In this connection he has relied upon Lachhman Dass and others v. The State of Punjab and others, reported as 1988 (2) PLR 375, wherein this Court has held as follows:-
".........The learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his impugned award dated March 5, 1979 concluded that the Municipal Committee had no right Sharma Ashish 2013.10.07 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.1478 of 2008 (O&M) -4- to share any compensation of this land and that the compensation shall be shared by the co-sharers of the village on the basis of the entries in the revenue record. It was further held that the land being much valuable than the other Shamilat deh land, the persons in possession thereof shall not be entitled to have the entire compensation but will have to share the compensation with other co-sharers in accordance with their proprietary rights in the land of this village....."
On the strength of this the petitioner has argued that the acquired land represented the share of Mian Ajmer Singh in the Shamilat deh land and therefore also it was covered under the interim orders.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have argued that if the petitioner had not given a detailed schedule of the claim that was raised in the civil suit this argument may have applied but once the petitioner gave a detailed schedule of all the properties that he was claiming in his civil suit then he would not be able to succeed in this petition because in the absence of this property being mentioned in the schedule it could not be said that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of the Court.
In my considered opinion, the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents carry more weight. No doubt the petitioner may even ultimately succeed in execution in case his suit is decreed but for the purpose of taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act what he has to establish is willful disobedience. There was no bar to the petitioner mentioning the said property also in the schedule. Having not mentioned Sharma Ashish 2013.10.07 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.1478 of 2008 (O&M) -5- the same it cannot be held that the respondents willfully disobeyed the interim orders of the Civil Court.
Consequently, the Rule is discharged. Petition is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
October 04, 2013 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2013.10.07 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh