CASE TITLE:
AJAY KUMAR PARASARAMKA VS PRADEEP KUMAR RATH
DATE OF ORDER:
13TH APRIL, 2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: AJAY KUAMR PARASARAMKA
RESPONDENT: PRADEEP KUMAR RATH
SUBJECT
The order's correctness or incorrectness cannot be argued in contempt proceedings. The order must be followed, right or wrong. Contempt would be charged if a party disobeyed a Court order. When hearing an application for contempt, the Court cannot go beyond the order alleged to be violated.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
BRIEF FACTS
- Petitioners filed the Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for wilful disobedience of the High Court's order dated 2121.03.2014.
- The respondents had been given an interim order by the High Court not to evict the petitioners from the property in dispute.
- Following the interim order, the respondent is stated to have attempted to demolish the petitioners' buildings and demolished part of the compound wall in contravention of the Court's instructions. As a result, the petitioners filed a contempt complaint.
- The respondents argued that the land was allotted to railways and was covered by wild growth, and that the petitioners had occupied the land unlawfully and illegally. As a result, the respondents/revenue authorities, along with the railway department, demolished the unauthorised structures and erected caution boards stating that "the land is Government Land."
QUESTION RAISED
Whether exercising contempt jurisdiction examine the order's validity or otherwise, nor can they issue new or delete any orders or not?
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
- When the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of property as encroachers, the court emphasised that the procedure set forth in the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, should have been followed to remove the unauthorised encroachment.
- The Respondent, however, removed the compound wall to remove the encroachment from the government land, despite the interim order and without following the procedure.
- When an order is issued, it is the responsibility of the authorities to carry it out without any interpretation, and if the order is contrary to the law, they have the right to file an appropriate appeal with the appellate authority.
CONCLUSION
- The court concluded that there was complete disobedience of the court's order in the case, and that the order was deliberately disobeyed by dismantling the compound wall under the guise of removing encroachments, despite the fact that the court's order was still in effect.
- The court ruled that the order must be carried out as directed by the Court, and that if the order is unconstitutional, they may file an appropriate appeal with the appropriate appellate authority. However, without filing an appeal, the respondent/contemnor is unable to interpret the order and give it a different meaning.
- As a result, the court authorised the contempt case because taking a lenient stance towards the respondent authorities would be detrimental to the judicial institution as a whole.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
