2001 (3) TMI 1071 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of certain provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Acts 1981 and 1986.
2. Alleged contempt of court by the State of West Bengal and its Revenue Authorities.

Summary:

Issue 1: Constitutionality of West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Acts 1981 and 1986
A special leave petition (SLP 1416/1997) was filed by Paschim Banga Rajya Bhumijibi Sangh challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Acts 1981 and 1986. An Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 3 of 1999) sought directions to prevent the State of West Bengal and its Revenue Authorities from initiating or continuing vesting proceedings against the members of the Petitioner Sangha until the disposal of the SLP.

Issue 2: Alleged Contempt of Court
The Supreme Court issued interim orders on 16th December 1999 and 17th April 2000 directing the maintenance of status quo regarding possession of land by the members of the Petitioner Sangha who were before the High Court in the writ petition. Despite these orders, the Revenue Authorities allegedly took possession of land from members of the Sangha, leading to a contempt petition.

The alleged contemnors, Sayed Kadar Hossain and Chitaranjan Chakraborti, argued that they interpreted the court's order to apply only to members who were part of the original writ petition filed in the High Court. They contended that the petitioners who claimed contempt became members of the Sangha only in 1992-93, after the filing of the writ petition, and thus were not covered by the court's orders.

The Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with caution and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging contempt. The standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding, meaning the breach must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court cited precedents, including Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr. and Re Bramblevale, to underline the necessity of proving contempt beyond reasonable doubt.

Given the ambiguity in the interpretation of the court's orders and the quasi-criminal nature of contempt proceedings, the Court found that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.