HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4114 of 2019
Applicant :- Govind Shanti Niketan Junior High School
Opposite Party :- Gyan Prakash Tripathi, Collector And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharmveer Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The applicant is before this Court against the wilful defiance of the interim orders dated 19.3.2015 and 28.4.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.13902 of 2015 (Govind Shanti Niketan J.H.S. v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference, the order dated 19.3.2015 and 28.04.2015 are quoted as under:-
19.03.2015: "Put up as fresh on 28.4.2015.In the meantime the construction of the petitioner shall not be demolished nor it shall be ejected from the land in dispute. Status quo shall also be maintained by the parties."
************
28.04.2015: "Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Dharamveer Singh for respondent-4.In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1123, as the petitioner is running a school and the school building is existing over the land in dispute, as such, after taking cost of the land, his possession be regularized.The Standing Counsel may take instruction in the matter and file counter affidavit of any responsible officer within a month. The counsel for the respondent may also file counter affidavit within the same period.Issue notice to respondent - 5 fixing a date in the third week of July 2015. The case shall be listed on the date fixed in the notice.Till the next date of listing, the interim order dated 19.3.2015 shall continue.When the case is listed next, name of Sri Dharamveer Singh be shown as counsel for the respondent."
From the perusal of record, this is admitted situation that the construction in question has been raised in the garb of the institution over the public utility land, which is recorded as "Bheeta" and "banjar" land. The relevant khatauni has also been placed by the counsel for the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also contended that vide order dated 28.4.2015 as quoted above the Court relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1123 has observed that as the petitioner-applicant is running a school and the school building is existing over the land in dispute, as such, after taking cost of the land, his possession be regularized. The stay order of eviction and demolition was extended from time to time.
Now at present the applicant is aggrieved with certain demarcation activity, which has been carried out by the opposite parties and preferred the present contempt application alleging wilful flouting of the orders dated 19.3.2015 and 28.4.2015.
On the matter being taken up on 11.7.2019, the Court had asked Shri Dharmveer Singh, appearing for opposite party nos.3 and 4 to seek instructions in the matter. Pursuant thereto, today he has placed the relevant photographs as well as revenue record indicating therein that even the applicant himself in the garb of the institution in question had tried to raise certain construction and encroached upon further land in the year 2015 and 2017 and the authority had proceeded to restrain the applicant. He further makes submissions that at no point of time the applicant has made an effort to regularise his encroachment as per the leave accorded by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2015. On one hand he is avoiding to pay the cost of the land so that its regularisation may be ensured and on the other hand he himself had proceeded to encroach further land of the public utility, which had been restrained by the opposite parties.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that so far as interim order is concerned, this is admitted fact that the applicant has encroached upon the public utility land. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate or suggest that the applicant has ever made an application to regularise his encroachment in view of leave accorded by this Court as per the judgment in Jagpal Singh (Supra). Allegations have also been levelled by the opposite parties that certain construction activities have also been carried out by the applicant to encroach upon further land in the year 2015 and 2017, which had been restrained by the opposite parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no contempt is made out against the opposite parties and the contempt application is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
Once the Court has declined to interfere in the matter and proposed heavy cost against the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant states that he is not inclined to press the contempt application.
In view of above, the contempt application is dismissed as not pressed. The notices, if any, stand discharged.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019
No comments:
Post a Comment