Sambhu Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court MJC No.3729 of 2014 (2) dt.09-11-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3729 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11299 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Sambhu Prasad Gupta Son of Late Jagarnath Sah R/o Village Dighikala, P.S Hajipur Town, District Vaishali, Hajipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Vyas Ji, The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna

3. Sri Uma Shankar Mandal, The Assistant Director, Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur

4. Sri Chandrama Rai, The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur

5. Sri Parmeshwar Rai Son of Late Chakardeep Rai R/o Village Dighikala, P.S Hajipur Town, District Vaishali, Hajipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The contempt application has been filed against the opposite parties of the State as also opposite party No.5 alleging willful disobedience of the interim order dated 21.10.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11299 of 2013. By the said order, while this Court issuing notice to the present opposite party No.5 had directed that until further orders, the impugned order dated 13.01.1998 shall remain stayed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the said interim order and ultimately the impugned order having

Patna High Court MJC No.3729 of 2014 (2) dt.09-11-2016 been set aside by this Court by allowing the writ petition, the opposite party No.5 is still continuing to fill up the land and is constructing a house over the land in question. The aforesaid action of opposite party No.5, even if as alleged by the petitioner, cannot be held to be a contempt of the order of this Court. The matter in hand is with regard to the right and title of the parties and the impugned order dated 13.01.1998 has been quashed by this Court on the ground that it was in excess of jurisdiction of the authority concerned.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do find any case for proceeding against the opposite parties under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) V.P.Sinha/- U