Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition for Non-Compliance of Order in Land Dispute. Court holds that subsequent compliance and filing of fresh writ petition render contempt proceedings infructuous.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 87
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present contempt petition arises out of Writ Petition No. 1683 of 1997, which was disposed of by the Bombay High Court on 24.8.1998 in terms of the minutes of the order. The petitioners, who were the landlords in the earlier writ petition, alleged that the respondents, including the Municipal Corporation of Solapur and its officers, failed to take further action to remove encroachers from their land, thereby committing contempt of court. The contempt petition was filed on 15.12.1998. Subsequently, the petitioners filed another writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 6234 of 2000. In that petition, the Deputy Engineer of the Corporation filed an affidavit on 29.3.2001 stating that on 22.3.2001, demolition was carried out by evicting occupants who were not eligible for alternate plots, and that four eligible occupants were to be provided alternate land. The court noted that the demolition had been carried out and the petitioners had already approached the court in a subsequent writ petition. The court held that the contempt petition had become infructuous as the order had been complied with and the petitioners had alternative remedy. The contempt petition was accordingly dismissed.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Compliance of Order - The contempt petition alleged that the respondents failed to remove encroachers from the petitioners' land despite the court's order. However, the court found that the demolition was carried out on 22.3.2001 and the petitioners had filed a subsequent writ petition, making the contempt proceedings infructuous. Held that no case for contempt is made out as the order has been complied with and the petitioners have alternative remedy. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by wilfully disobeying the order dated 24.8.1998 in Writ Petition No. 1683 of 1997.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The contempt petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Law Points

  • Contempt of court
  • wilful disobedience
  • compliance of order
  • subsequent writ petition
  • infructuous proceedings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 181

Contempt Petition No. 403 of 1998

2005-02-22

B. H. Marlapalle, J.

Mr. A. A. Kumbhkoni for Petitioners, Ms. Deepti Chand h/f V.B. Naik for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Mr. S.K. Chincholikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4, Mr. G.S. Godbole for Respondents 5 to 9 and 12

Ambaji Chandrayya Bomen, Suresh Venkappa Samleti, Venkatesh Ramayya Gulapalli, Nagnath Budappa Mittha

The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of City of Solapur, Mr. P.S. Labba, The Municipal Corporation of City of Solapur, The State of Maharashtra, Dashrath Mallappa Kokurti, Yellappa Asarinath Gaikwad, Kisan Baburao Bhosale, Suresh Ramchandra Jadhav, Vitthal Nagappa Devtagi, Laxman Bhanappa Bandagi, Yaknath Kashinath Jadhav, Indubai Vinayak Kashaveed, Karbhari Subhash Dattatray

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of court order in a land dispute.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought action against the respondents for contempt of court for failing to remove encroachers from their land as per the order dated 24.8.1998.

Filing Reason

The petitioners alleged that the respondents did not take further action to remove encroachers despite the court's order in Writ Petition No. 1683 of 1997.

Previous Decisions

Writ Petition No. 1683 of 1997 was disposed of on 24.8.1998 in terms of the minutes of the order. Subsequently, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 6234 of 2000.

Issues

Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by wilfully disobeying the order dated 24.8.1998.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that no further action was taken to remove encroachers after the order. The respondents contended that demolition was carried out on 22.3.2001 and the petitioners had filed a subsequent writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the demolition was carried out on 22.3.2001 and the petitioners had filed a subsequent writ petition, the contempt petition had become infructuous and no case for contempt was made out.

Judgment Excerpts

It is also evident that the present petitioners had subsequently filed writ petition No. 6234 of 2000 and the Deputy Engineer of the Corporation filed an affidavit in the said petition on 29.3.2001. It was stated in the said affidavit, interalia, that on 22.3.2001 the demolition was carried out by evicting the occupants who were not eligible for alternate plots and the four occupants who were found to be eligible for alternate plots were to be provided alternate land.

Procedural History

Writ Petition No. 1683 of 1997 was disposed of on 24.8.1998. The present contempt petition was filed on 15.12.1998. Subsequently, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 6234 of 2000, in which an affidavit was filed on 29.3.2001 stating that demolition was carried out on 22.3.2001. The contempt petition was heard and dismissed on 22.2.2005.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition for Non-Compliance of Order in Land Dispute. Court holds that subsequent compliance and filing of fresh writ petition render contempt proceedings infructuous.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Ejectment Suit — Maintainability of Suit Without Rent Controller Permission Upheld. Lease Agreement for Fixed Term Not Requiring Notice Under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.