Court No. 10
Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 2951 of 2002
(Ibne Hasan and another Vs. Sri H.L. Prajapati, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika
Parishad, Faridpur, District Bareilly and another.)
And
Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 2952 of 2002
(Ibne Hasan and another Vs. Sri H.L. Prajapati, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika
Parishad, Faridpur, District Bareilly and another.)
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.
I have heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Shamim Ahmad, Advocate for the applicants and Sri Prem Chandra, learned
counsel for the opposite parties.
The Contempt Application No. 2951 of 2002 was filed alleging
disobedience of the order dated 11.10.2002 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 44739 of 2002, whereby the operation of the impugned notice dated
21.09.2002 was stayed. By the notice dated 21.09.2002, the Nagar Palika
required the applicants to remove their constructions from the land held by the
Nagar Palika.
The Contempt Application No. 2952 of 2002 was filed alleging
disobedience of the orders dated 12.04.1999 and 13.05.2002 passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 122272 1999, whereby it was provided that the
constructions raised by the applicants over plot no. 80, would not be disturbed
by the opposite parties.
Upon issue of notices, affidavits have been exchanged between the
parties.
Sri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite parties, at the outset,
has stated that it is admitted position that plot no. 80 belongs to the applicants
and the Nagar Palika is not creating any interference with the construction of the
applicants over the said plot. It is, however, submitted that the applicant in the
garb of raising construction over plot no. 80, under any interim orders or final
orders being passed by the civil court or by this Court cannot trespass over any
other plot not belonging to him and specially plot nos. 78 and 98, which belongs
to the Nagar Palika. He has further submitted that the notices were given to the
applicants only when they started raising constructions over plot no. 98.
Civil suits have been filed by both sides. However, as on date none of the
suit is pending.
According to Sri M.A. Qadeer after the demarcation was effectively carried
out, the applicants have withdrawn their suit. He has further stated that the
Nagar Nigam cannot interfere in their raising of construction over their plot no.
80.
Admittedly, the demarcation has been carried out and both sides agree
that they would confine their rights to the plots over which, they have their rights.
Further in this contempt jurisdiction such disputed question of fact raised
by the parties regarding construction being raised on one plot or any other plots,
cannot be determined.
In view of above, no further consideration is required in the contempt
applications. Accordingly, notices are discharged. Both the contempt applications
are consigned to record.
Dt. 03.08.2010
Akv