Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghisu Lal Ghewar Chand vs Tara Chand Gosai & Anr on 8 August, 2008
Author: N P Gupta
Bench: N P Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
O R D E R
(1) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 195 of 2008
SUKAN RAJ FOOL CHAND
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(2) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 210 of 2008
CHAMPA LAL MAG RAJ
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(3) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 211 of 2008
MOTI LAL BHANWAR LAL
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(4) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 212 of 2008
BINJ RAJ NATHMAL
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(5) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 213 of 2008
GHISU LAL GHEWAR CHAND
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(6) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 214 of 2008
JAGDISH CHAND BANKAT LAL
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(7) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 215 of 2008
MAHAVEER OIL INDUSTRIES
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(8) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 216 of 2008
UGAM RAJ GAJ RAJ
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
2
(9) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 217 of 2008
MANAK CHAND PRAKH
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(10) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 218 of 2008
NATH MAL BHANDARI
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(11) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 219 of 2008
HEERA LAL BASTI MAL
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(12) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 220 of 2008
FATEH CHAND HANWANT CHAND
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(13) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 221 of 2008
GHEWAR CHAND GAUTAM CHAND
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(14) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 222 of 2008
M/S.MARWAR DAL MILL
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(15) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 223 of 2008
NIMI CHAND RAJENDRA KUMAR
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(16) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 224 of 2008
CHUNNI LAL KHINV RAJ
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(17) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 225 of 2008
SUKAL CHAND GHISULAL
V/S
3
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(18) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 226 of 2008
RAJA RAM MOHAN LAL
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI
(19) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 227 of 2008
ASHUJI-KEWAL CHAND
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI
(20) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 228 of 2008
DHAN RAJ HEERA LAL
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI
(21) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 229 of 2008
PUKH RAJ KHINV RAJ
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
(22) WRIT CONTEMPT No. 230 of 2008
MULTAN MAL MOHAN LAL
V/S
TARA CHAND GOSAI & ANR
Mr. TARUN JOSHI for Mr. JP JOSHI, for the petitioners
Date of Order : 8.8.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J.
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE GUPTA,J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. All these 22 contempt petitions arise in identical circumstances, and have been filed with identical allegations.
4
Of course, the litigation has a chequered history, and finally litigation terminated in favour of the petitioners by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2007 rendered in the bunch of 30 Special Appeals, some filed by the State, and some filed by the Municipality. The whole sequence of events culminating into the order dated 15.11.2007 was that certain lands were allotted to the petitioners by the Municipal Council, Pali in the year 1971, 9.10.1971 to be precise. Thereafter, it appears that the Municipal Council entertained a feeling that the land was wrongly allotted, or that it was allotted for a throw away price, and therefore, attempts were made to wriggle out of that allotment, by cancelling the allotment on one ground or the other. Thereupon, litigation commenced. Finally in the judgment dated 15.11.2007 it was adjudicated that the grounds taken by the Municipal Council for canceling the allotment cannot be sustained, as each of the grounds taken were examined on merits, and the contemplated actions of the Municipal Council to cancel the allotments of the petitioners was put to a final full-stop. In other words, by the said judgment, the title of the petitioners over the land, as allotted by the Municipal Council, and for the purpose for which it was allotted, was finally recognised.
It is, in these background, that now the Municipal Council has issued notice (Annex.2). We may gainfully quote the relevant part of the contents 5 thereof, which reads as under:-
"नगर पररषद क स ध रण सभ क बठक ददन क 26.4.08 क ल य गय पस व क अनसरण म! पररषद द र इस न द$स क जररय ल क नगर ध नमण'( य जन क सभ) आवद$य (जजनक तक )न नगर प ल क , प ) द र वष- 1971-72) म! ध न क दक न. क भ/खण' आवद$ दकय गय थ) उन आवद$य. (ववकय पत/पट$ ध रक.) एव भ/खण'. क व म - न सकसशर इन$स$ क स/ल; दकय ज ह दक नगर पररषद द र व म- न म! ल क नगर ध नमण'( वय वस लयक य जन क सथ न पर शहर क ववक स क दव? स आव स)य य जन क यम क ज रह( ह। उक आव स)य य जन म! पररषद प/व- क ध नमण'( य जन क उक आवद$य. क बद म! इस य जन म! आव स)य भ/खण' दन क ल य सहम ह। म/ आवद$य. (ववकय पत/पट$ ध रक.) क स/;) न); द( ज रह( ह थ यह स/;न उन आवद$य. पर भ) ग/ ह ग) जजनक न म दकस) क रणवश इस स/;) म! अदक नह( ह प य ह।
अ : इस स/;न क पक लश ह न क र(ख स 15 ददन क अवलध क अनदर बद म! आव स)य भ/खण' प लB ह प थ-न पत मय भ/खण' क दस वज पस कर! । अनयथ उक अवलध क पश D नगर पररषद द र उक ल क नगर ध नमण'( य जन क भ/खण'. क लनयम नस र अव B करन क क य-व ह( प रमभ क ज वग)। स स/ल; रह।"
On issuance of this notice, the petitioners are said to have submitted a reply/representation, and then the contempt petition has been filed, alleging inter-alia that now instead of following the said judgment, the Municipal Council has again issued notice for initiating acquisition proceedings for the same land, for which allottees' rights have been finally adjudicated by the Division Bench on two different occasions, and that the language of the notice was the same as put by the Division Bench, and as has been considered by this Hon'ble Court, which action is said to be tantamounting to contempt for the reasons detailed in para 10 of the contempt petition, which inter-alia includes that according to the petitioners, it seems that the Municipal Council wants to question the rights, which have already been adjudicated by this Court on three different occasions, and which have acquired finality as no 6 appeal has been filed by the Municipal Council against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Thus, the action is said to be contemptuous.
In our view, there is no quarral with the proposition that the judgment dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Division Bench puts to an end all controversy with respect to the title of the petitioners as vests in them by virtue of the allotment of the year 1971, for the purposes for which the allotment was made, and in this background, a reading of the Annex.2, on the other hands, makes it clear that it proceeds with the assumption of recognising the petitioners' title over the land allotted to them, and does not in any manner even in a far fetched manner, contemplate to dispute the title of the petitioners. It appears from the reading of the notice that the Municipal Council intends to float some other scheme, and for that purpose, requires the land in question, and for that purpose some option was given to the petitioners, obviously the petitioners are free to avail the option, and are equally free not to avail the option. The only consequence provided for not availing option is that Municipal Council will initiate action for acquisition of the land in accordance with law. Giving this intimation, inherently presupposes that the Municipal Council is proceeding with the acquisition of the petitioners' title over the land. In that view of the matter, in our view, it cannot be said that by issuing the notice, any contempt is made out. It is obvious that if any action is taken for acquisition, 7 it would obviously be taken in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.
Thus, in our view, there is no force in the contempt petitions. The same are, therefore, dismissed. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI),J. (N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/