ORDER
C.C.P. 272/99.
1. This contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed and/or violated the undertaking given in the Court of Shri G.P. Thareja in Suit No. 379/1976. A copy of the said order is placed on record.
2. I have been taken through the said judgment which contains the aforesaid undertaking given by the respondents. The undertaking was to the effect that the petitioner, who was the plaintiff therein, would not be evicted from the suit property, save and except by due process of law. In view of the aforesaid undertaking given by the counsel for the espondents before the Court, the Court also ordered that the defendant/respondents would be bound by the aforesaid statement. The said suit was dismissed by the order dated 5.7.1978, after recording the aforesaid undertaking of the
counsel for the respondent.
3. It is alleged in this petition that in wilful violation and disobedience of the aforesaid undertaking given to the Court, the respondents have been taking steps to evict the petitioner and, therefore, there is a wilful violation which gives rise to a cause of action to prefer a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. The respondents have entered appearance and have contested the present proceedings by filing a reply affidavit.
5. The respondents have categorically denied that the respondents have in any manner violated and/or disobeyed the aforesaid undertaking given to the Court. It is stated that after 1978 no action was taken by the respondents
to evict the petitioner from the aforesaid premises till a only in 1998 a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act was initiated by the respondents against the petitioner for his eviction from the aforesaid premises.
6. The Estate Officer after receiving evidence produced by the parties and hearing them passed a final order holding that the land in question is a Government land and that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the said land. Consequently he passed an order of eviction of the petitioner from the said land. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, the petitioner filed an appeal as provided for under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, which according to the counsel for the petitioner was withdrawn. But according to the counsel for the respondents, the same was dismissed. It appears that a revision petition was filed in this Court which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous (Main), which was also subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner.
7. It is thus apparent that an order for eviction of the petitioner has been passed by the Estate Officer on a proceeding initiated by the respondents in accordance with law. The Estate Officer in the said proceeding had categorically held that the land in question is a Government land under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the said land. The said findings of the Estate Officer have now become final. It is also borne out from records that the petitioner has now filed a suit in the Court of Shri V.K. Goel, Civil Judge, which is numbered as Suit No. 46/1999 which is pending disposal. In the said suit, an injunction was also sought for which was not granted.
8. Counsel for the petitioner states that the land in question cannot be said to be a Government land and, therefore, action of resorting to summary procedure on the part of the respondents cannot be said to be a proceeding initiated in accordance with law. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another Vs. Bandi Venkatarama and others Vs. Velluri Kesava Rao and another; . Counsel also relies upon the decision in Express Newspapers
Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others; . In Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra), His
Lordship A.P Sen, J., (as His Lordship them was), on the facts of the said case held that the land in question occupied by the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., could not be said to be Public premises belonging to the Central government under section 2(6) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act.
9. The present, however, is not a similar case inasmuch as, the Estate Officer has given a specific finding that the land is a Government land and therefore, Public premises within the meaning of the definition given in the Act. Therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the facts are istinguishable. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another Vs. Bandi Venkatarama and others Vs. Velluri Kesava Rao and another (supra) is also not applicable inasmuch as, the said decision was rendered on the findings that there is bona fide dispute regarding the title of the land. In the present case, the Estate Officer recorded categorical findings that the land in question is a Government land and that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the same on the basis of which he passed an order of eviction against the petitioner which findings and conclusions have become final.
10. In my considered opinion, therefore, the respondents proceeded to evict the petitioner after following due process of law. In a proceeding like this seeking for initiation of proper action under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court is only to see whether the order and/or undertaking given to the Court is in any manner violated and/or disobeyed and whether there is any wilful violation of the said undertaking or order.
11. The undertaking given to the Court was that the petitioner would not be evicted by the respondents without following due process of law. As the respondents initiated a proceeding following the due process of law in accordance with the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and since thereafter the said proceeding has come to a conclusion with the decision given thereon, all consequential actions taken, thereto, after it has become final and binding have the sanctity of law and in my considered opinion, no violation and/or disobedience to the order passed by this court as alleged, is proved. The present proceeding is misconceived and is dismissed accordingly.
