2004 (3) TMI 811 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:

1. Alleged willful disobedience of the Division Bench Judgment dated 17.1.1995.
2. Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and its implications.
3. Interpretation and application of the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules.
4. Maintainability of the contempt petition under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
5. Compliance with the Judgment of the Division Bench and the recording of cultivatory possession.
6. Legal principles governing contempt proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Willful Disobedience of the Division Bench Judgment Dated 17.1.1995:
The petition alleged that the Respondents willfully disobeyed the Division Bench Judgment dated 17.1.1995, which directed the maintenance of the record of rights in accordance with the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, without considering the amendments to Rules 49, 63, and Form P.5 by the Delhi Land Revenue (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 1989. The Division Bench had held these amendments to be bad in law and beyond the authority of the rule-making power.

2. Appeal Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Its Implications:
The Respondents filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of by Judgment dated May 5, 2000. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench Judgment, reiterating that the amendments made in Rule 49 and Rule 63 adversely affected the rights of tenure holders or sub-tenure holders and were contrary to the provisions of both the Land Reforms Act and the Land Revenue Act. The Supreme Court confirmed that the rule-making authority had exceeded its power, and the appeals had no merit.

3. Interpretation and Application of the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules:
The case involved the interpretation of Sections 4, 5, 65A, and 81 of the Land Reforms Act, and Sections 41 and 63 of the Land Revenue Act. The amendments to Rule 63 and Form P.5 were found to be inconsistent with these Acts. The Court emphasized that the rule-making power does not allow the creation of rules that travel beyond the scope of the enabling Act or are inconsistent with it.

4. Maintainability of the Contempt Petition Under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
The Respondents contended that the contempt petition was barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, the Court found no merit in this contention, noting that the Petitioner had shown responsibility by not filing the contempt petition during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. The Court held that the petition was within the prescribed period of limitation, as non-compliance with the Judgment was ongoing.

5. Compliance with the Judgment of the Division Bench and the Recording of Cultivatory Possession:
The Court found that the Respondents had failed to comply with the Division Bench Judgment by not recording the cultivatory possession of the Petitioner. The Khasra Girdawaris for 1977-1982 recorded the Petitioner's possession, but this was not continued in subsequent years. The Respondents' argument that the land was 'banjar' or barren was not supported by evidence. The Court concluded that the Respondents had deliberately not recorded the Petitioner's possession, thereby violating the Judgment.

6. Legal Principles Governing Contempt Proceedings:
The Court reiterated that for a person to be held punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Order must be explicit and unambiguous. The Court should avoid exercising contempt powers if two opinions are possible and the one adhered to by the Respondents is plausible. The power to commit for contempt should not be used as a substitute for execution proceedings. The Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction should be exercised with care and caution, focusing on deliberate disobedience of court orders.

Conclusion:
The Court found the Respondents guilty of willful disobedience of the Division Bench Judgment dated 17.1.1995. The Respondents' failure to record the Petitioner's cultivatory possession was deliberate and contumacious. The Court rejected the preliminary objection regarding limitation and emphasized the ongoing nature of non-compliance. The Respondents were directed to be present for sentencing on 12th March, 2004.

← Previous Next →