Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Anyway, these facts definitely reveal that when application had not been given in 1970, agreement is alleged to have been entered on 27-5-1970, and the number of the land allotted is also mentioned in the agreement. These facts and the circumstances per se reveal that agreement would have been entered after the grant of the land in favour of respondent 1, antedating the document. On the basis of antedated document, the petitioner-transferee under agreement of sale had filed objections, the authorities did not act upon that agreement and the Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption of the land and its possession and held firstly that when there is a bar against alienation and Section 4 declares that transfer made in breach of conditions prohibiting alienation as well as in breach of prohibition of sub-section (2) of Section 4, shall be null and void. Petitioner's Counsel admits that the grantee is a Scheduled Caste, the land granted is free of upset price, then law had to prevail thereunder that bar against alienation will operate for 15 years from the date of grant and delivery of possession. The grantee had got the possession of the land. Even if he, respondent 1, would have agreed to transfer the land without necessary permission to transfer it or he would have attempted to transfer the land without obtaining permission of the State Government, the transfer would have been void and therefore, such an agreement which appears to have been intended to frustrate the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, it could be said to be void under Section 23 of the Contract Act and if such an agreement was void and any person is in possession thereof, the Government being the owner of the land was entitled for resumption therefore, and there was nothing wrong, if resumption order had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Order Annexure-D appears to be perfectly valid.

7. In this view of the matter, I think this Court should take necessary steps and issue notice to the petitioner as well as respondent 1, to show-cause why this Court should not take action for contempt and punish them for having committed contempt of this Court.

Hence, notice under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is being issued by this Court to petitioner and the petitioner is also required to show and explain why he has made the false statement that he has been in possession of the land in dispute from 1970, i.e., prior to its grant in favour of grantee made on 30-12-1980, which amounts to contempt of Court and has produced a forged document purporting to be dated 27-5-1970 (i.e., antedated document Annexure-'A' to this writ petition).

7-A. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Let the notice be issued to the petitioner and respondent 1, to show-cause why they should not be subjected to proceeding for contempt of Court and be punished for filing the false affidavits and forged and antedated documents. A copy of this order shall be annexed with the copy of the notices to the parties, that is, the petitioner and the 1st respondent.

Let a copy of this notice be served on the learned Government Advocate for information, who may be required to assist the Court in further proceeding in contempt of Court case.