# Prem Shankar v. Rajeev Pandey Spl. Land Acquisition officer Bareilly & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 51
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-25
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5344 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-shankar-v-rajeev-pandey-spl-land-acquisition-officer-bareilly-anr-48809
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Section 12-acquisition of the landdeliberate and wilful disobedience of
the order-representation was to be
decided
by
the
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer-Committee
adjudicated the claim and found the
applicant entitled for 1/3 rd share for
the compensation-applicant aggrieved
by the compensation awarded may
approach
before
the
appropriate
forum, but no contempt proceedings
are maintainable as there is no wilful
disobedience of the Writ Court. (Para 1
to 38)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Prem Shankar Vs. Rajeev Pandey Spl. Land Acquisition officer Bareilly & Anr.
51
have
definitely
been
entitled
for
appointment under the Dying in Harness
Rules.

6.

Learned
Standing
Counsel,
however, relying upon a judgment rendered
by a Full Bench of this Court in Pawan
Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2010 (8) ADJ 664 has
submitted that since the petitioner's father
was not a Government servant as has been
defined in Rule 2(a) of the Dying in
Harness Rules, the petitioner was not
entitled to be considered for appointment.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, the
Court is of the view that when the matter with
regard to age relaxation had been forwarded
to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow much before the father of the
petitioner had died, then the case of the
petitioner could not be jeopardized simply
because the age relaxation was conveyed to
the District Magistrate on 22.2.2019 i.e after
the petitioner's father had died on 30.11.2017.
The petitioner ought to be given the
advantage which would have accrued to him.
Had the State acted with alacrity, the District
Magistrate could have passed the order on the
age relaxation of the petitioner's father before
his death.

8. Under such circumstances, the Court
presumes that the advantage which the
petitioner would have got, had the petitioner's
father been regularized before his death,
should have been extended to the petitioner.
Under such circumstances, the order dated
19.9.2020 is quashed and is set-aside. The
matter is remitted back to the District
Magistrate, Bhadohi who shall, within a
period of one month from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this order,
reconsider the case of the petitioner treating
that the petitioner's father was a regularized
employee at the time of his death.

9. The writ petition is, accordingly,
partly allowed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A51
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5344 of 2021

Prem Shankar ...Applicant
Versus
Rajeev
Pandey
Spl.
Land
Acquisition
officer Bareilly & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Krishna Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Section 12-acquisition of the landdeliberate and wilful disobedience of
the order-representation was to be
decided
by
the
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer-Committee
adjudicated the claim and found the
applicant entitled for 1/3 rd share for
the compensation-applicant aggrieved
by the compensation awarded may
approach
before
the
appropriate
forum, but no contempt proceedings
are maintainable as there is no wilful
disobedience of the Writ Court. (Para 1
to 38)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Reddy Veerana Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Civil
appeal No. 3636 of 2022
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Dr. U.N Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer &
ors. Vs Assam Roller Flour Mills Assn. & anr.
(2022) 1 SCC 101

3. Suman Chadha & ors. Vs C.B.I. (2021) AIR
SC 3709

4. Bhopendra Singh & ors. Vs Awas Vikas
Parishad & ors. First Appeal No. 33 of 2004

5. Ram Kishan Vs Tarun Bajaj & ors. (2014) 16
SCC 204

6. Sushila Raje Holkar Vs Anil Kak (Retd.)
(2008) 14 SCC 392

7. Re: P.C Sen (1969) 2 SCR 649

8. Jhareswar Prasad Paul & anr. Vs Tarak Nath
Ganguly & ors. (2002) 5 SCC 352

9. Prithawi Nath Ram Vs St. of Jharkhand &
ors. (2004) AIR SC 4277

10. Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & ors.
Vs Cese Ltd (2008) 16 SCC 592

11. Mrityunjoy Das & anr. Vs Sayed Hasibur
Rahman & ors. (2001) 3 SCC 739

12. Murray & Co. Vs Ashok Kr. Newatia

13. Chhotu Ram Vs Urvashi Gulati & anr.
(2001) 7 SCC 530

14. Anil Ratan Sarkar & ors. Vs Hirak Ghosh &
ors. (2002) 4 SCC 21

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shiva Kant Mishra,
Advocate holding brief of Sri K.K. Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Sri R.K. Mishra, learned
Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This contempt proceeding under
Section 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 has been initiated against the opposite
parties
for
deliberate
and
wilful
disobedience of the order dated 30.07.2019
passed in Writ-C No.17534 of 2019 (Prem
Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others).

3. Case, in nutshell, is that the
applicant
who
is
the
owner
with
transferable rights of Gata Nos. 275, 276,
277, 296 and 297, measuring 3519 Sq.
Metre, his land was taken over for
construction of mini by-pass without
adverting to acquire the land under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. The applicant had approached for
payment of compensation which was not
paid as per the Government Order dated
19.03.2015 and 12.05.2016, the applicant
was constrained to approach this Court and
file writ petition.

5. The writ Court, on 30.07.2019,
directed
the
applicant
to
file
a
comprehensive representation ventilating
all his grievances which he had taken in the
writ petition before the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bareilly who was to
decide the same by reasoned and speaking
order within three months. When no action
was taken by the opposite party no.1, the
present
contempt
proceedings
were
initiated.

6. Initially, on 19th April, 2022, the
opposite parties filed their affidavit of
compliance stating therein that the District
Magistrate, on 13.04.2020 had constituted a
Committee to decide the claim of the
applicant as per the Government Order
dated 19.03.2015. The Committee enquired
and
determined
the
amount
of
compensation
to
the
tune
of
Rs.27,44,82,000/- and submitted its report
to the District Magistrate. The District
6 All. Prem Shankar Vs. Rajeev Pandey Spl. Land Acquisition officer Bareilly & Anr.
53
Magistrate on 13.04.2022 had made an
endorsement
on
the
report
of
the
Committee, and forwarded it for approval
to the Commissioner, Bareilly Division.
The approval was awaited.

7. The case was taken up on
19.04.2022 and the Court directed the
matter to be placed on 10.05.2022 and by
that time, the payment was to be released,
in case of non-compliance, the opposite
parties were to remain present in the Court.
On 10.05.2022, the lawyers were on strike
and the matter was deferred for 17.05.2022
and the officers were required to be present
before the Court. On 17.05.2022, affidavit
of compliance was filed by all the three
officers who were present in the Court and
are arrayed as opposite parties.

8. In the affidavit filed by the District
Magistrate, Bareilly, in paragraph 11, it is
stated
that
the
Commissioner
on
05.05.2022 made an objection to the report
forwarded by the District Magistrate and
directed that the matter should be re-visited
in the light of the Government Order dated
19.03.2015. On the same day, the Public
Works Department also submitted its
report/objections, wherein it was stated that
the acquisition proceedings started in 2001
and the possession was transferred in 2003.
The land in question was recorded in the
name of one Smt. Bhagola Devi W/o late
Mishri Lal, Janki Prasad, Prem Shankar
(applicant) and Sri Devi Das sons of late
Mishri Lal. It was further stated that the
names of the co-tenure holders were
recorded in the revenue records over the
agricultural land. The revenue records does
indicate that the land was recorded as
abadi. The objections and the reports of
Commissioner, Bareilly and Public Works
Department have been brought on record as
Annexures 1 and 2 to the affidavit of
compliance dated 10.05.2022. Thereafter,
on 06.05.2022, the District Magistrate
constituted
a
new
Committee
for
determining the share of the applicant. The
Committee
submitted
its
report
on
07.05.2022 mentioning therein that land in
question was agricultural and not abadi at
the time of notification/acquisition, and
share of applicant was 1/3rd.

9. The Valuation Approval Committee
which was convened on 09.05.2022,
determined the value of compensation
payable to the applicant (1/3rd share) to the
tune of Rs.75,07,200/-. The said report was
approved by the District Magistrate and the
directions were issued to the Public Works
Department for payment of compensation
amount. Copy of the report of the approval
of District Magistrate has been brought on
record as Annexures 3 and 4 of the affidavit
of compliance.

10. Sri Shiva Kant Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that the
compensation payable to the applicant is to
the tune of Rs.27,44,82,000/- which was
recommended by the Committee constituted
by District Magistrate on 13.04.2022 which
was in accordance with the Government
Order dated 19.03.2015. According to him,
once the amount was quantified, no occasion
arose for re-determining the compensation, as
Commissioner was not the authority to have
given any approval or disapproval to the
amount already quantified, and the opposite
parties are in contempt of not complying the
order of the writ Court. He invited the
attention of the Court to the Government
Order dated 19.03.2015 which requires for
the payment of the amount to the landholders
whose land is taken as per agreement.

11. He then contended that the
Committee had found that the rate payable
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as per the circle rate was Rs.39,000/- per
Sq. Metre and pursuant to the Government
Order dated 19.03.2015, the amount as per
the circle rate was payable, which was
rightly calculated by the Committee on
13.04.2022. According to him, once the
amount was quantified and an admission
has been made by the officers of the State
Government by filing an affidavit, they
cannot resile at a subsequent stage and
deny the payment.

12. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgments of the Apex Court in case of
Reddy Veerana Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh
and
others,
decided
on
05.05.2022 arising out of Civil appeal
No.3636 of 2022, Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex.
Chief Executive Officer and others Vs.
Assam Roller Flour Mills Association
and another 2022 (1) SCC 101, Suman
Chadha and others Vs. Central Bank of
India, AIR 2021 SC 3709, and Bhopendra
Singh and others Vs. Awas Vikas
Parishad and others, First Appeal No.33
of 2004, decided on 04.08.2005 by the
High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital.

13. Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for
the opposite parties submitted that the
direction of the writ Court was only to the
extent of deciding the representation by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly.
The writ Court had not adjudicated the
matter
on
merits
and
order
dated
30.07.2019 categorically takes note of the
fact that without any opinion on the merits
of
the
case,
applicant
was
granted
opportunity
to
file
a
comprehensive
representation before the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bareilly.

14. As the earlier Committee
constituted by the District Magistrate on
13.04.2022 calculated the compensation on
the basis of the land situated in the Abadi
area, but when approval was sought from
the Commissioner, it came into the light
that the land which was taken over, was
agricultural land and not abadi.

15. Moreover, the objections of the
Public Works Department brought into the
light that the applicant was only one of the
co-sharers of the land taken over for
construction of mini by-pass, and there
were two other co-sharers who were also
entitled for compensation. As the matter
was referred back to the District Magistrate
to enquire again, Committee was reconstituted and on enquiry, it was found
that entry in revenue records reflected that
land was recorded as agricultural land.
Further, the applicant was only entitled to
1/3rd share in the land taken over and
compensation to the tune of Rs.75 lakhs
and odd was directed to be paid.

16. According to Sri Goyal, the
applicant is not entitled to the amount
quantified on 13.04.2022 as no approval
was accorded by the Commissioner, and the
State cannot be compelled to pay the
amount for which the applicant is not
entitled for. He next contended that in case,
the applicant is aggrieved by the order
passed by the District Magistrate that the
applicant is entitled to only 1/3rd amount of
compensation of the land taken over, he
may approach the reference Court or any
other judicial forum as the order of the writ
Court has been duly complied with which
was to the extent of deciding the
representation of the applicant.

17. Having heard rival submissions
and after perusing the material on record, I
find that the proceedings initiated at the
behest of applicant against the State
6 All. Prem Shankar Vs. Rajeev Pandey Spl. Land Acquisition officer Bareilly & Anr.
55
Officials under Section 12 of the Contempt
of Courts Act are for punishing them for
wilful disobedience of the order of the writ
Court. According to the applicant, the
officers are in contempt as they have filed
an affidavit on the earlier occasion stating
that the applicant was entitled to the
payment of Rs.27,44,82,000/- and now
resiling back from the said affidavit and
coming with a case that the applicant is
only entitled for Rs.75 laksh and odd would
attract the wrath of Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

18. Before proceeding to decide the
issue as to whether any deliberate or wilful
disobedience of the order has been made by
the opposite party, a glance of Section 2(b)
of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is
necessary for better appreciation of the
case, which is extracted hereasunder:-

"2. (b) "civil contempt" means wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a
court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court;"

19. From the reading of the said
provisions, it is clear that to attract
provision of civil contempt, the party
approaching the Court has to show that
there is any wilful disobedience of any
judgment or order of the Court.

20. In order to punish a contemnor, it
has to establish that disobedience of the
order is "wilful". The Supreme Court in its
celebrated judgment rendered in the case of
Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj and others
2014 (16) SCC 204, held that the word
"wilful" introduces a mental element and
hence, requires looking into the mind of a
person/contemnor by gauging his actions,
which is an indication of one's state of
mind. According to Court, the word
"wilful" means knowingly intentional,
conscious, calculated and deliberate with
full knowledge of consequences flowing
therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental,
bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine
inability. Wilful act is to be distinguished
from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly,
heedlessly or inadvertently. The relevant
paras 11 and 12 of the judgment are
extracted hereasunder:-

"11. Contempt jurisdiction conferred
onto the law courts power to punish an
offender
for
his
wilful
disobedience/contumacious
conduct
or
obstruction to the majesty of law, for the
reason
that
respect
and
authority
commanded by the courts of law are the
greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens
that his rights shall be protected and the
entire democratic fabric of the society will
crumble down if the respect of the judiciary
is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt
jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the
hands of the courts of law but that by itself
operates as a string of caution and unless,
thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable
for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction
under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-
criminal in nature, and therefore, standard
of proof required in these proceedings is
beyond all reasonable doubt. It would
rather be hazardous to impose sentence for
contempt on the authorities in exercise of
contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities.

12. Thus, in order to punish a
contemnor, it has to be established that
disobedience of the order is ''wilful'. The
word ''wilful' introduces a mental element
and hence, requires looking into the mind
of person/contemnor by gauging his
actions, which is an indication of one's
state of mind. ''Wilful' means knowingly
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
intentional,
conscious,
calculated
and
deliberate
with
full
knowledge
of
consequences
flowing
therefrom.
It
excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or
unintentional acts or genuine inability.
Wilful
acts
does
not
encompass
involuntarily or negligent actions. The act
has to be done with a "bad purpose or
without justifiable excuse or stubbornly,
obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is to
be
distinguished
from
an
act
done
carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently. It does not include any act
done negligently or involuntarily. The
deliberate conduct of a person means that
he knows what he is doing and intends to
do the same. Therefore, there has to be a
calculated action with evil motive on his
part. Even if there is a disobedience of an
order, but such disobedience is the result of
some compelling circumstances under
which it was not possible for the contemnor
to comply with the order, the contemnor
cannot
be
punished.
"Committal
or
sequestration will not be ordered unless
contempt involves a degree of default or
misconduct"

21. In Dr. U.N. Bora (Supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that wilful
disobedience will be in case where the
action
is
deliberate,
conscious
and
intentional. The Court further held that
while dealing with the contempt petition,
the Court was not expected to conduct a
roving enquiry and go beyond the very
judgment
which
has
allegedly
been
violated. Relevant para 8 is extracted
hereasunder:-

"8. We are dealing with a civil
contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a
willful disobedience of a decision of the
Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the
"willful" 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 two views are possible,
the element of willfulness 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 vigor 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."

22. It is made clear that in the present
case, the writ Court on 30.07.2019 had
required the Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Bareilly
to
decide
the
representation of the applicant by a
reasoned and speaking order. There was no
adjudication of claim by the writ Court.
The writ Court had specifically observed
that the petition was disposed of without
going into the merits of the case. Once, the
6 All. Prem Shankar Vs. Rajeev Pandey Spl. Land Acquisition officer Bareilly & Anr.
57
writ Court did not adjudicate the matter on
merit leaving it open to the authorities to
decide the claim, the contempt Court
cannot go behind the order passed by the
writ Court and conduct a roving and fishing
enquiry as has been held in the judgment of
the Apex Court.

23. The argument raised at the behest
of the applicant falls flat in view of the
judgment cited above as there is no wilful
disobedience by the officers concerned, as
no claim was adjudicated by the writ Court
leaving it open for the authorities to decide
the claim in accordance with law.

24. Moreover, the report of the
Committee
endorsed
by
the
District
Magistrate on 13.04.2022 cannot be said to
be a final order which was subject to
approval of the Commissioner, Bareilly
Division who had taken a decision on
05.05.2022 remitting back the file to the
District Magistrate to re-constitute the
Committee and submit a fresh report. It
was
when
the
Committee
was
reconstituted, it was found on enquiry that
the land which was taken in the year 2003
was in fact, agricultural land recorded in
the name of three persons and the applicant
was one of co-tenureholder, and was
entitled
to
only
1/3rd
share
of
compensation.

25. The argument on behalf of the
applicant that he was entitled to the entire
share cannot be accepted as authorities
have found him entitled to only 1/3rd share
and the calculation having been made on
the basis of the land recorded in the
revenue records as agricultural land. The
compensation
earlier
determined
on
13.04.2022 was on the basis of the land
situated in abadi whose value was more
than the agricultural land.

26. In Sushila Raje Holkar Vs. Anil
Kak (Retd.) 2008 (14) SCC 392, the Apex
Court held that the proceeding under
Contempt of Courts Act has a serious
consequence. The Court held that where
there is a allegation against a contemnor
that he has wilfully committed breach of
the order passed by a competent Court of
law, then for the said purpose, it may be
permissible to read the order of the Court in
its entirety. Para 23 of the judgment is
extracted hereasunder:-

"A proceeding under the Contempt of
Courts Act has a serious consequence.
Whether
the
alleged
contemnor
has
willfully committed breach of the order
passed by a competent court of law or not
having regard to the civil/evil consequences
ensuing therefor require strict scrutiny. For
the said purpose, it may be permissible to
read the order of the court in its entirety.
The effect and purport of the order should
be taken into consideration. Whereas the
court shall always zealously enforce its
order but a mere technicality should not be
a ground to punish the contemnor. A
proceeding for contempt should be initiated
with utmost reservation. It should be
exercised with due care and caution. The
power of the court in imposing punishment
for contempt of the court is not an
uncontrolled or unlimited power. It is a
controlled power and restrictive in nature
(See Re: P.C. Sen [(1969) 2 SCR 649] and
Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v.
Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors. [(2002) 5 SCC
352]. A contemnor, thus, may be punished
only when a clear case for contumacious
conduct has been made out."

27. In the case in hand, the alleged
breach is of the order of the writ Court
dated 30.07.2019 which nowhere quantifies
the amount or decide the lis between the
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parties. It only relegates the matter to the
authorities and directs the applicant to
approach through a representation which
has to be decided. Thus, according to
judgment of the Apex Court rendered
above, no contempt is made out against the
opposite part.

28. It is well settled that Court dealing
with application for Contempt of Courts
cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot
test correctness, or otherwise of the order
or give additional direction or delete any
direction, as it would amount to be
exercising review jurisdiction with an
application for initiation of contempt
proceedings. It is impermissible. The Apex
Court had occasion to hold such view in
case of Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of
Jharkhand and others, AIR 2004 SC
4277.

29. The contempt Court while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 10
read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 is only to see that the order of the
writ Court is complied with. It acts like an
Executing Court and cannot go behind the
order passed, which is to be complied with
by the authorities. It is not a Court of
adjudication, rather it is an Executing
Court.

30. In case, the Contempt Court starts
lifting the wheel and adjudicates upon a
matter, the entire purpose and the scheme
envisaged under the Act, 1971 would fail.
The Contempt Court has been given limited
jurisdiction, to the extent that in case, a
contemnor violates and does not comply
the order of the adjudicating Court and
there is a wilful disobedience on his part,
he is liable to be punished for civil
contempt.

31. The Executing Court cannot, in
the garb of getting an order of adjudicating
Court complied with, enter into an area
which is prohibited and adjudicate and
record its own finding.

32. In the present case, the writ
Court did not decide the lis between the
parties, rather it remitted the matter to the
competent authority for adjudication.
Interference by the Contempt Court into
the action of the competent authority
would amount to adjudicating the claim,
which is not in the domain of the
Contempt Court.

33. The Contempt Court has its
limitation, it cannot enter the arena which
is forbided. The adjudication of a claim
cannot be done by the Executing Court, as
the role assigned is to the adjudicating
authority/Court.

34. Once, the authorities had decided
the claim of the applicant, order of the writ
Court stood complied with and in case of
applicant
being
dissatisfied,
has
an
efficacious remedy to approach the Court
or any forum provided under law, and the
same cannot be decided under the contempt
jurisdiction. In Dr. U.N. Bora (Supra), the
Apex Court had clearly held that no roving
enquiry can be conducted by a Contempt
Court.

35. Similarly, in Three Cheers
Entertainment
Private
Limited
and
others Vs. Cesc Limited, 2008 (16) SCC
592, the Hon'ble Apex Court had the
occasion to consider whether a contempt
proceedings can be drawn by a roving
enquiry. The Court held a roving enquiry is
not permissible. Relevant paras 25, 29, 30
are extracted hereasunder:-
6 All. Prem Shankar Vs. Rajeev Pandey Spl. Land Acquisition officer Bareilly & Anr.
59

"25. Indisputably, the majesty of the
Court is required to be upheld. The Court
must see that its orders are complied with.
But for the said purpose, a roving enquiry
is not permissible. Several proceedings
which seek to achieve the same purpose are
unknown to the process of law. If the trial
was to be held on the issues framed by the
learned Single Judge, it should have been
allowed to be brought to its logical
conclusion. When the trial was incomplete,
we fail to see any reason why the contempt
proceeding was heard on affidavits. Even if
that was done, reliance was sought to be
placed on the depositions of the witnesses
in the said enquiry, which was admittedly
incomplete. Witnesses affirming affidavits
before the learned Single Judge were not
being cross- examined so as to enable the
counsel for the parties to draw their
attention to the earlier statement made by
them in terms of Section 145 of the
Evidence Act.

29. Contempt of court is a matter
which deserves to be dealt with all
seriousness. In Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v.
Sayed Hasibur Rahman & Ors. [(2001) 3
SCC 739], this Court held :

"13. Before however, proceeding with
the matter any further, be it noted that
exercise of powers under the Contempt of
Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious
and use of it rather sparingly after
addressing itself to the true effect of the
contemptuous conduct. The court must
otherwise come to a conclusion that the
conduct complained of tantamounts to
obstruction of justice which if allowed,
would even permeate in our society (vide
Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia). This
is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the
law courts to punish an offender for his
contemptuous conduct or obstruction the
majesty of law."

30. In Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati
& Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 530], this Court held
that a contempt of court proceeding being
quasi criminal in nature, the burden to
prove would be upon the person who made
such an allegation. A person cannot be
sentenced on mere probability. Willful
disobedience and contumacious conduct is
the basis on which a contemnor can be
punished. Such a finding cannot be arrived
at on ipse dixit of the court. It must be
arrived at on the materials brought on
record by the parties.

Yet again in Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors.
v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors. [(2002) (4) SCC
21], it was opined :

"15. It may also be noticed at this
juncture that mere disobedience of an order
may not be sufficient to amount to a ''civil
contempt' within the meaning of Section
2(b) of the Act of 1971 - the element of
willingness is an indispensable requirement
to bring home the charge within the
meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event
two interpretations are possible and the
action of the alleged contemnor pertains to
one such interpretation - the act or acts
cannot be ascribed to be otherwise
contumacious in nature. A doubt in the
matter as regards the willful nature of the
conduct if raised, question of success in a
contempt petition would not arise." "

36. After considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that as the order of the writ Court dated
30.07.2019 was specific to the extent that
the representation of the applicant was to
be decided by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, the Committee constituted by
District Magistrate has finally adjudicated
the claim and found the applicant entitled
for the compensation to his 1/3rd share
amounting to Rs.75,07,200/-.
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

37. Thus, if the applicant is aggrieved
by the compensation so awarded by the
State authorities, he may approach the
forum available under the law challenging
the said order, but no contempt proceedings
are maintainable as there is no wilful
disobedience of the order of the writ Court.
Once, the claim has been adjudicated, the
applicant has a remedy of challenging the
same if he is not satisfied by the claim
decided by the State officials.

38. The contempt application is
devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

39.

Contempt
notice
stands
discharged.
----------
(2022)06ILR A60
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Jail Appeal No. 35 of 2019

Dharmesh Pasi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Jail Appeal, Ranjana Srivastava(A.C.), Ranjana
Srivastava, Subhi Guha(Amicus curiae)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 & 506Challenge
to-Conviction-no
previous
enmity-in order to reach fast at the
destination, appellant crossed the green
crop of the deceased and when they were
prevented
they
attacked
upon
the
deceased-Injuries were on vital part-in a
sudden provocation he attacked upon the
deceased and later he died- no intention
to kill the deceased but the act was done
with the knowledge that would likely
cause death-No force was applied against
the accused-No difference or disparity
between the ocular and medical evidenceThe prosecution has been successful in
proving its case beyond reasonable doubt
under Part II of Section 304 IPC.(Para 1
to 22)
The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. This jail appeal has been preferred
against the order of conviction and
sentence dated 06.10.2018 by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9,
Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.260 of 2016 in
case crime no.43/2016, under Section ?
304, 506 IPC, Police Station ? Behata
Gokul, District ? Hardoi.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that Lalu
alias
Akhilesh
lodged
an
FIR
on
02.02.2015 that on 01.02.2015 at around
04:00 PM he was sitting in the western side
of the plot of Jagpal Rathore. Suddenly
Dharmesh came with unknown person and
started going from his plot. When his father
opposed, Dharmesh attacked from the
wooden patra an unknown person attacked
with lathi. When his father cried he saw
and ran towards them then they ran away
giving death threats. His father received
injury at his head and stomach. With the
help of villagers he moved him to the
hospital
where
he
died
during
the
treatment. He requested to lodge FIR and
take appropriate action. According to him
Mahipal has also seen the occurrence.

3. The grounds of the appeal are that when
the accused was in jail he forwarded jail