Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gaj Singh Alsisar vs T Ravi Kanth And Others on 9 January, 2014
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR :: ORDER :: D.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION 1105/2013 Gaj Singh Alsisar Vs. Shri T.Ravikanth, IAS, District Collector, Collectorate, Jaipur & Ors. D.B. CIVIL MISC.APPLICATION NO.308/2013 Gaj Singh Alisisar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 09.01.2014 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.R.K.Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Sunita Pareek, Mr.Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Devendra Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Gill, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Akshat Choudhary, Mr.Rajendra Prasad for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :
Heard Mr.R.K.Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Sunita Pareek, Mr.Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Devendra Sharma for the petitioner and Mr.G.S.Gill, Additional Advocate General appearing with Mr.Akshat Choudhary, Mr.Rajendra Prasad for the respondents.
The instant petition records an imputation that the respondents herein have deliberately not complied with the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 9.4.2013 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.192/2013 within the time frame of three months, as referred to therein.
The respondent No.1, in his reply, apart from pleading against the said allegation and contending that he has highest regard for the majesty of law and towards the dignity of this Court, has inter alia referred to the order dated 15.10.1987 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2713/1987, whereby the respondents therein had been restrained from leasing of the property involved or alienating the same in any manner. Reference has also been made to an order dated 12.11.1987 passed in the same petition directing the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to moveable properties lying and stored in the Sukh Mahal, Jai Niwas, Amar Hall and other godowns, as mentioned therein. The respondents however, have been permitted to put their locks and seal on the doors on the said properties, where moveable properties are lying. The answering respondent has therefore, contended that in view of the above interim orders, the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956, as directed by the order dated 9.4.2013, could not be proceeded with. That an application has also been filed by the State Government seeking extension of time mentioned in the order dated 9.4.2013 and also to recall the said order, has been stated as well.
Whereas the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the orders dated 15.10.1987 and 12.11.1987, having regard to the nature of the exercise directed to be conducted by the order dated 9.4.2013, does not come in the way of implementation thereof, and that, time as prayed for may be granted, if this Court considers it expedient to do so, Mr.Gill has urged that necessary clarification may be provided vis-a-vis the orders dated 15.10.1987 and 12.11.1987 so as to enable the respondents to take necessary steps. In response to his prayer for grant of time, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has urged that though the same may be granted by this Court, if considered necessary, the same ought not to be construed by the respondents to be a liberty to them to delay the implementation of the order dated 9.4.2013.
We have considered the pleaded facts and the arguments advanced.
The relevant excerpt of the order dated 9.4.2013 is quoted hereinbelow:-
Be that as it may, the scheme of section 6 however, makes it more than apparent that determination as to the status of the property involved in the proceedings under the Act, cannot be made by the Tehsildar, and that, his jurisdiction ends with the submission of the report after exhausting the steps, as comprehended in section 4(i)(a)(b) and (c). To this extent, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the direction in the impugned judgment and order referring him (appellant) to the Tehsildar is not consistent with the framework of sections 4 and 6 of the Act, cannot be discarded.
In the above view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent that the jurisdictional Tehsildar would, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, submit a report to the Collector as required u/s 4(d) of the Act, whereafter, the concerned District Authority would, without any delay, take the necessary initiatives as is contemplated in section 6 of the Act. As it has been urged before us that possession of the property has been taken over by the Tehsildar, Khetri though Patwari as far as back in 1987, and that the intervening delay has been caused, in view of the pendency of probate proceedings, we consider it appropriate to fix a time limit for the Collector to complete the exercise, as contemplated in section 6 of the Act.
We thus, order that the Collector, Jhunjhunu would complete the process as is contemplated in section 6 of the Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from the Tehsildar, Khetri.
It is submitted at the Bar that the probate proceeding, being Testamentary case No.26/1987 initiated by a Trust, which had claimed that the deceased had bequeathed its property to it, had been dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 3.7.2012, and that, an appeal from such determination is pending in that court.
The orders dated 15.10.1987 and 12.11.1987 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2713/1987 are extracted hereunder:-
Order dated 15.10.1987 :
Issue notices to the respondents meanwhile the respondents shall neither lease of the property nor alienate in any manner.
Order dated 12.11.1987:
Issue notice of stay application. In the meanwhile the respondents shall maintain status quo with regard to moveable properties lying and stored in the said Sukh Mahal, Jai Niwas, Amar Hall and other godowns. However the respondents may put their locks and seal on the doors on the said properties where moveable properties are lying.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 17.12.2013, as consented by them, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2713/1987, has also been directed to be heard alongwith the instant contempt petition.
Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of the exercise intended to be undertaken by the order dated 9.4.2013, we are of the view that these orders dated 15.10.1987 and 12.11.1987 do not pose any impediment as such therefor. In that view of the matter, D.B.Civil Misc.Application No.308/2013 seeking recall of the order dated 9.4.2013 is rejected. However, the respondents are granted further six weeks' time from today to unfailingly complete the process, as intended by the order dated 9.4.2013 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.192/2013.
The civil misc.application is disposed of accordingly.
In view of the stand taken by the respondent No.1 in his reply in the instant contempt proceedings, we are of the comprehension that no deliberate and conscious disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 9.4.2013 is established.
Resultantly, the contempt petition is closed.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J. Skant/-
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, PA