IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY DISPUTE. LPA of Date of decision:

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY DISPUTE LPA of 2006 Date of decision: INDERJEET SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) and OTHERS APPELLANTS Through: Mr.R.K.Saini, Mr.Nikhil Bhalla and Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocates. Versus R.K.SINGH and OTHERS... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA/R-1 and R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellants filed WP(C) No.6012/2000 seeking a restraint order against the DDA from interfering with the possession of their land which they had purchased in pursuance to

2 four sale deeds executed on , property bearing no.139- A measuring 2,000 square yards situated in Lal Dora Abdai Deh Area of Village Peeraghari, Delhi in Khasra No The stand of the DDA was that in the earlier proceedings before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1331/1999, which had been filed for cleaning up the pond and for construction of boundary wall after removal of illegal encroachments, a statement was made on behalf of the DDA that steps would be taken to fill the pond with earth and tenders had been floated for the said purpose and that four months time was required to complete the work. This stand of the DDA had been accepted by the Division Bench with a direction to the DDA to remain bound by the statement. The appellants, however, pleaded that the pond had no correlation with the land of the appellants. 3. It is in view thereof that CWP No.6012/2000 was disposed of on with directions to the SDM to carry out a survey and a proper demarcation at site. If it was found that the land of the appellants was different from the pond in respect of which directions had been issued in CWP No.1331/1999, the controversy would not survive but if the land of the appellants included the pond area then the directions of the Division Bench in CWP No.1331/1999 would prevail. However, liberty was given to the parties to take legal remedy in case they were aggrieved by the demarcation report. 4. A second writ petition, CWP No.6098/2003, was filed by the appellants alleging that despite demarcation having been carried out by the SDM, the DDA was likely to re-fill the pond contrary to the report of the SDM. Counsel for the DDA made a statement that the DDA would abide by the report of the SDM and would only fence the pond. Thus, the grievance in that behalf did not survive but the second relief claimed by the appellants was to provide security by the police for construction of boundary wall since some local residents were seeking to prevent the same for which appropriate directions were issued. 5. An application came to be filed in CWP No.6098/2003 seeking modification of the Order dated The appellants alleged that the construction of the boundary wall was being carried out by the DDA on the land of the appellants which position was disputed

3 by the DDA. It was agreed that in order to settle this controversy, the SDM be directed to fix four points in respect of the land of the appellants so that they know exactly where their land was located and then to carry out necessary measurements. The application was accordingly disposed of on The grievance of the appellants did not end at that since they alleged that there were violation of the orders passed by the Court and thus CCP No /2003 was filed. At this stage, it may be noticed that the SDM recorded that in view of the lay of the land fixing of four points was not possible but no specific application was filed seeking modification of the order passed on In the meantime, a different petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court stating that they were the owners of the remaining 2,000 square yards of the land adjacent to the land of the appellants (both sets of land originally being one consolidated piece of land measuring 4,000 square yards). In the said writ petition, the issue of demarcation and the filling up of pond was raised. This WP(C) No.20031/2004 was disposed of on noticing the previous litigation between the appellants herein and the DDA and the directions passed in that behalf. The learned Single Judge found from the records that the demarcation was not carried out as per the norms as no revenue map had been referred, no site plan prepared, no fixed points identified and even the field book had not been referred. Despite this fact, the DDA officers at the spot had accepted the demarcation in terms whereof the disputed site of that writ petition fell within Lal Dora. The writ petition was disposed of with an order prohibiting the DDA from interfering with the possession of the petitioner at site but liberty was granted to the DDA to apply for fresh demarcation so that it could be carried out in accordance with law. 7. The aforesaid writ petition and the CCP /2003 filed by the appellants were taken up together for hearing. The CCP was disposed of stating that the orders passed in the writ petition showed that identity of the land at the site did not emerge with clarity and thus contempt notice should be discharged, but respondent should maintain status quo at site. The appellants filed a review application which has been dismissed by the Order dated It was alleged in the review application that the contempt application was wrongly tagged with the said writ petition which was filed by a third party and that the

4 direction had already been issued in the writ petitions filed by the appellants earlier. The learned Single Judge found that the orders passed in the writ petition of the third parties protected the interest of the appellants and the orders were pronounced in the open Court with the same counsel appearing both for the third parties in the writ petition as well as for the contemnors. No prayer was made that something else was required to be done in the contempt proceedings. The demarcation was found to be faulty and thus orders had been passed. The appellants have thereafter filed the present letters patent appeal seeking to challenge the Order dated passed in the review petition in the contempt petition and also the order dated passed in the contempt petition. 8. We had, at the inception, itself put a query to the learned counsel for the appellants as to how the letters patent appeal would be maintainable since proceedings were in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. 9. The scope and ambit of the orders to be passed in the contempt jurisdiction and the aspect of appeals has been dealt with in Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and Ors.; (2006 )5 SCC 399. It was held that in the contempt proceedings, the only aspect which has to be examined and directions passed is whether the contemnor was in contempt of the proceedings and no general directions can be passed. The position regarding appeals against orders in contempt proceedings was summarized in para 11 of the judgment, which is as under: 11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus: I. An appeal under Section19is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section19of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article136of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue

5 relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under Section 19of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section19of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intracourt appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intracourt appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article136of the Constitution of India (in other cases). The first point is answered accordingly. 10. It is the stand of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the contempt proceedings were not initiated, an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 would not lie as per para I and II above. Similarly, no directions have been passed which are incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt in which case an appeal under Section 19 would lie as per para IV above. The intra-court appeal in the form of letters patent appeal would be available only if the parameters of the case fell within para V above or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 11. We, however, find that in the impugned order there are not directions made on the merits of the dispute in the contempt proceedings as to entitle para V above to apply to the facts of the case. In fact, such directions can really not be made as per para III above and only if such directions were erroneously made would the remedy be available under para V above. We may also refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Ors. v. Ved Prakash Joshi and Ors; (2005) 6 SCC 98 where it was held that the contempt court is concerned only with whether the decision in question has been complied with or not.

6 12. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the letters patent appeal filed by the appellants is not maintainable against the impugned order discharging the contempt notice and refusing to review that order. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In case the appellants have any other legal remedy available in accordance with law, it will be open to the appellants to invoke that remedy. Sd./- SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. Sd./- JANUARY 20, 2009 SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.