High Court
Case Details
Reserved on 29.11.2022 Delivered on 15.12.2022 Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2125 of 2022 Applicant :- Rishi Goel Opposite Party :- Arun Veer Singh, C.E.O., Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Udayan Nandan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Praveen Kumar,Praveen Kumar,Syed Imran Ibrahim Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. This contempt application under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act has been filed for punishing opposite parties for willfully disobeying and not complying the order dated 14.07.2021 passed in Writ-C No. 14704 of 2021 and interim order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Writ-C No. 28145 of 2021. 2. The facts in nutshell, are that applicant before this Court claims himself to be owner of Chak No. 1064, Gata No. 684, Village- Jhajhar, Tehsil- Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahar. According to applicant, he had started raising construction of a residential colony in the name of Aero City Residency after taking permission from Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahar on 20.02.2020. Before the permission was granted, a notice under Section 10 of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 was issued by Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter called as “YEIDA”). The said notice was set aside by order of competent authority on 05.03.2020. The development authority preferred an Appeal No. 13 of 2021 before the Chief Executive Officer/Appellate Authority against the said order. On 30.03.2021, the appellate authority had required the applicant not to make any further construction. A notice was given on the same day to the applicant to remove the construction so raised. Another notice was issued on 18.05.2021 by the appellate authority to the applicant to remove the CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2125 of 2022 [2] construction. Both the notices dated 30.03.2021 and 18.05.2021 were
Legal Reasoning
challenged through Writ-C No. 14704 of 2021. The writ Court on
Decision
14.07.2021 while partly allowing the writ petition had quashed notices dated 30.03.2021 and 18.05.2021 and required the appellate authority to decide the objection of the applicant in regard to maintainability of the appeal. The appellate authority on 07.10.2021 by an order, held the appeal to be maintainable. Against this order, Writ-C No. 28145 of 2021 was preferred by the applicant and the writ Court while staying the operation of the order dated 07.10.2021 further stayed the proceedings of Appeal No. 13 of 2021 which was pending before the Chief Executive Officer/Appellate Authority. According to applicant, officials of the authority visited the spot in question on 29.03.2022 and demolished the entire construction. 3. A reply has been filed by the opposite party wherein in reply filed by opposite party no. 3, it has been mentioned that Gata No. 684 as per revenue records is owned by three persons namely, Rishi Kumar Goyal, Mr. Sharad Kumar Goyal and Omprakash Tara Devi Educational Trust. As far as Chak No. 1064 is concerned, it is held by two persons namely, Mr. Sharad Goyal and Omprakash Tara Devi Educational Trust. According to opposite party no. 3, Chak No. 1064 is not held by the applicant and the land of the said Chak has been sold to various persons by the owners mentioned in the revenue records which has been brought as Annexure- RA-1. Further, Gata No. 684 has been sold to 107 persons through various sales and has been carved out into sub plots. It is Ms. Priya Goel who is selling multiple plots and and she had also constructed an office for promoting sale of such plots in Gata No. 684. As the rampant unauthorised construction was going on, the demolition activity was carried out after notice dated 08.02.2022 was issued to 8 buyers namely, Priya Goel, Sri Jahan Singh, Smt. Laxmi, Smt. Bhawna Rahul Bhatia, Sri Sudesh Kumar Talan, Smt. Rajkumari, Smt. Poonam Devi and Sri Rakesh CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2125 of 2022 [3] Kumar. In the said notice, name of the applicant was not there as the said Chak No. 1064 was not recorded in his name. 4. Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that writ Court initially on 14.07.2021 had quashed the demolition notice issued in the name of the applicant and had required the appellate authority to first decide the issue regarding maintainability of the appeal. After the order dated 07.10.2021 by which the appeal was held to be maintainable, the said order was put to challenge by applicant through Writ-C No. 28145 of 2021 and the Court had stayed the said order as well as directed that no further proceedings in the appeal would be held. He further contended that in case the opposite party had found that he was not owner of the property in dispute then why the notice for demolition was issued in the name of the applicant. Further, he has invited the attention of the Court to disconnection order passed by Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited dated 29.03.2022 which refers to the name of the applicant as consumer and the said electric connection was disconnected due to demolition of the encroachment made in the colony. 5. According to him, once the order of appellate authority was stayed and the Court had restrained the appellate authority from pursuing the matter, no occasion arose for demolishing the construction which was standing over on the plot in question. 6. Sri Manish Goel, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party no. 1 submitted that opposite party has been wrongly roped in the contempt proceedings as no order has been passed against him and opposite party no. 1 is appellate authority and has not violated any order of this Court. 7. Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party nos. 3 and 6 submitted that Chak No. 1064 is not recorded in the name of applicant and Gata No. 684 is recorded in name of number of CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2125 of 2022 [4] persons. The said Gata has been divided into number of plots and has been sold to various persons after carving out small plots and their names have been entered into the revenue records since 2019. He has invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-2 to reply filed by opposite party no. 3 wherein the entire list mentions name of the purchasers of Gata No. 684M who are 107 in number. According to him, applicant- Rishi Goel is not the owner in possession of the said Gata and the authorities after issuing the notice on 08.02.2022 to 8 persons who had made unauthorised constructions, the demolition activity was carried out on 29.03.2022. 8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. This is a case where the applicant has alleged violation of the orders of the writ Court by opposite parties who are the officials of the YEIDA. The applicant before this Court has claimed himself to be owner of Chak No. 1064, Gata No. 684 situated at Village- Jhajhar, Tehsil- Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahar. The said village now comes under the control of YEIDA. 10. In the first round of litigation, the writ Court while quashing the show-cause notice had required the competent authority to decide the question of maintainability of appeal, on the objection raised by the applicant before entering into the merits. The appellate authority on 07.10.2021 held the appeal to be maintainable which was challenged before the writ Court by the applicant and writ Court on 08.12.2021 had stayed the order passed by the appellate authority as well as further proceedings of the appeal. The writ Court had not stayed any demolition which was to be carried out by the authorities. From the documents brought on record by opposite party no. 3, it is clearly demonstrated that Chak No. 1064 is not recorded in the name of the applicant in the revenue records. Moreover, Gata No. 684 has been sold to various persons CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2125 of 2022 [5] numbering 107 from the year 2019 to 2021 by one Priya Goel. The entire list brought on record as Annexure No. RA-2 does not mention the name of the applicant, Rishi Kumar. Moreover, the notice issued on 08.02.2022 to 8 persons who have been alleged to have made unauthorised construction also does not show name of the applicant and the demolition has been carried out over the construction made by 8 persons mentioned in the notice dated 08.02.2022 on 29.03.2022 by the authorities. There is no specific denial to the fact by the applicant in his reply to the affidavit of opposite party no. 3 in regard to sale made to 107 persons by Priya Goel between the year 2019 to 2021 and also to the revenue entries made in Chak No. 1064 and Gata No. 684. 11. This Court finds that name of the applicant is not recorded in the revenue records and none of the persons in whose name the entries exist over the plot in dispute, and to whom notices have been issued, have come forward before this Court challenging the action of the authorities nor any contempt proceedings have been initiated by them, the initiation of contempt proceedings at the behest of the applicant is not maintainable. 12. This Court finds that reliance upon the disconnection order of the electricity department in favour of the applicant would not make out a case for contempt, as no roving inquiry can be done in contempt proceedings in regard to title and ownership of the applicant over the land in question. 13. Recently, the Apex Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held as under:- "8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2125 of 2022 [6] two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings." 14. I am of the considered view that once the opposite parties have brought on record the material to demonstrate that applicant was not recorded in the revenue records for which the demolition activity has taken place, pursuant to notice issued by the authority on 08.02.2022. No case for contempt is made out against the opposite parties. 15. The contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. Contempt notice stands discharged. Order Date :- 15.12.2022 V.S.Singh CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2125 of 2022 Digitally signed by VIDYA SAGAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.15 17:13:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad