Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3385 of 2010 Petitioner :- Waqf Haji Maula Bux @ Mohammad Fazal Waqf No.11-E- Ii,K.Nagar Respondent :- Prem Singh Chauhan, Petitioner Counsel :- Shamim Ahmad,M.A. Qadeer Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shamim
Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of the applicant.
The premises in suit was allotted in favour of Mohd. Javed. However when
the allotment was cancelled, upon an application filed by one Prem Singh,
Mohd. Javed preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.34316 of 1999
before this Court impleading Prem Singh as respondent no.3 and the present
applicant as respondent nos.4 & 5. The writ petition filed by Mohd Javed was
dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.8.1999. However the Court
protected the interest of the applicant with regard to its right to seek release of
the premises in dispute. Thereafter an application was filed by the Sunni
Central Waqf Board for recall of the order dated 31.8.1999. In the said recall
proceedings the respondent no.3 Prem Singh gave an undertaking that if
ultimately the property in question is held to be of Waqf Board he shall
immediately hand over possession. In view of the said statement the Court
directed vide interim order dated 27.09.1999 that Prem Singh be put into
possession after evicting Mohd. Javed. The order dated 27.09.1999 is quoted
hereunder-
“Sri A.K. Srivastava has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3. He
prays for and is granted a weeks time for filing counter affidavit to the review
application. He further states that respondent no.3 undertakes that if
ultimately the property in question is held to be of the Waqf Board and the
review application is allowed, the respondent no.3 shall immediately
handover possession to the person as per the directions of this Court. In view
of this statement it is directed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall
immediately take action under section 18(3) of the Act against petitioner
Mohd. Javed and put respondent no.3 in possession of the disputed property
which shall be subject to the final decision on the review application.
List on 15.10.1999.
Certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the counsel for the parties
within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.”
The recall applications were finally disposed of vide order dated 10.12.1999
with the following observations-
“As far as claim of the respondent no.5 to the property in question is
concerned this court while dismissing the writ petition has already safe
guarded its interest by giving it opportunity to place relevant facts and
material before the R.C. & E.O. if the property is going to be released or
allotted in favour of the landlord or any other person as the case may be.
It may further be clarified that the mere fact that respondent no.3 has been
put in possession of the property in question in the restitution proceeding
would not have any effect on the rights and title of respondent no.5 which the
Board is claiming and before the matter is finally decided by the R.C. & E.O.
he shall act in accordance with the observations made earlier by this court in
the order dated 31.8.1999.
With these observations both the application No.61606 of 1999 and 73253 of
1999 are disposed of.”
Thereafter it was held that the Waqf is the owner/landlord and the premises in
dispute were released in favour of the applicant. A revision was filed against
the same which was dismissed. Thereafter a review application was filed
which was also dismissed in the year 2008 and the writ petition filed against
the same being Writ Petition No.64395 of 2008 is said to be still pending, in
which neither any order for admission has been passed nor there are any
interim order in favour of the opposite party.
In these circumstances the present contempt application has been filed
alleging violation of the undertaking given by the opposite party before this
Court in the proceedings of the Writ Petition No. 34316 of 1999.
Issue notice fixing 31.8.2010. If by the said date the opposite party does not
comply with the undertaking given by him, and does not file an affidavit of
compliance to that effect before this Court he shall remain present.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010
RPS