1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.K. Bhatt, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 10 read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1971') praying for initiation of contempt proceedings for the non compliance of the orders dated 13.12.2017 and 11.02.2020 passed by Board of Revenue, Lucknow in Revision No.2060 of 2017 (Safdar Husain vs. Atahar Husain & others), under Section 209 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1901").
3. It is contended that the Board of Revenue had passed orders of status quo which have been violated by the respondent herein and thus, it is prayed that the contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondent.
4. A question before this Court would be as to whether the present contempt petition filed under Section 10 of the Act, 1971 praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against an order passed by the Board of Revenue would be maintainable. for deciding this question, the Court has taken the assistance of Sri. H.K.Bhatt, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel.
5. The Apex Court in the case of E. Bapanaiah vs. K.S. Raju reported in (2015) 1 SCC 451, has held as under:-
"25. Powers of the High Courts to punish for contempt including the powers to punish for contempt of itself flow from Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 empowers the High Courts to punish contempts of its subordinate courts which reads as under: -
"10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. - Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:
Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
27. The present case relates to a civil contempt wherein an undertaking given to Company Law Board is breached. Normally, the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act are not invoked by the High Courts for forcing a party to obey orders passed by its subordinate courts for the simple reason that there are provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to get executed its orders and decrees. It is settled principle of law that where there are special law and general law, the provisions of special law would prevail over general law. As such, in normal circumstances a decree holder cannot take recourse of Contempt of Courts Act else it is sure to throw open a floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. It is not the object of the Contempt of Courts Act to make decree holders rush to the High Courts simply for the reason that the decree passed by the subordinate court is not obeyed."
6. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment in the case of K.S. Raju (Supra), it is apparent that the power exercised by the High Court under Section 10 of the Act, 1971 can be exercised where there is no provision for execution or compliance of such orders meaning thereby that where there is an effective remedy for enforcing the order of court below, then the High Court would be justified in declining to entertain the contempt petition.
7. Being armed with the aforesaid proposition of law, the Court now sets out to see whether there is a remedy available to the petitioner of having the orders passed by the Board of Revenue complied with?
8. The orders of which contempt is alleged, have been passed by the Board of Revenue on a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 209 of the Act, 1901.
8. With the promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006"), in terms of Section 230 of the Code, 2006, the enactments specified in the first schedule of the Code, 2006 were repealed. The first schedule List- A at Serial No. 10 indicates the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 meaning thereby that with the promulgation of the Code, 2006, the Act, 1901 stood repealed.
9. A query was put to the learned counsel for the applicant that once the Code, 2006 was promulgated w.e.f 11.02.2016 and considering Section 230 of the Code, 2006 as to how the revision under Section 209 of the Act, 1901 would be maintainable.
10. To the said query, learned counsel for the applicant contends that considering Section 231 of the Code, 2006, all cases pending before the Revenue Court immediately before the commencement of the Code, 2006 have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law which would have been applicable to them had the Code, 2006 not been passed and thus he contends that as the revision would fall within the ambit of "Case Pending", it being a continuance of the proceedings that were initiated before the Revenue Court, consequently the said revision could be filed and in fact was filed considering Section 231 of the Code, 2006 under the provisions of the Act, 1901.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that considering Section 231 of the Code, 2006, the order passed by the Board of Revenue, alleging non compliance of which the present contempt petition has been filed under the provisions of the Section 10 of the Act, 1971, being an order passed by a Court subordinate to the High Court and there being no other mode for compliance of the interim order passed by the Board of Revenue and the same having been violated, the present contempt petition would be maintainable.
12. For considering the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant this Court would have to consider the provisions of Section 231 of the Code, 2006 which read as under:-
" (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Code, all cases pending before the State Government or any Revenue Court immediately before the commencement of this Code, whether in appeal, revision, review or otherwise, shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law, which would have been applicable to them had this Code not been passed.
(2) All cases pending in any civil court immediately before the commencement of this Code which would under this Code be exclusively triable by a [Revenue Court] shall be disposed of by such civil court according to the law in force prior to the date of such commencement."
13. Section 231 of the Code, 2006 clearly indicates that all cases pending before the State Government or any Revenue Court immediately before the commencement of this Code, whether in appeal, revision, review or otherwise, shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law, which would have been applicable to them had the Code not been passed.
14. Section 231 of the Code, 2006 would thus be applicable on all pending cases on the date of promulgation of the Code, 2006 i.e as on 11.02.2016. The cases have been dealt separately i.e whether by way of appeal, revision, review or otherwise meaning thereby that in the present case once a revision was filed by the applicant on 13.12.2017 under Section 209 of the Act, 1901, as comes out from a perusal of the copy of the revision which has been filed as annexure 6 to the contempt petition it is apparent that the Act, 1901 stood repealed with the promulgation of Code, 2006 w.e.f 11.02.2016.
15. Accordingly, the next question which arises is that when a revision had been filed by the applicant in December, 2017 and the same was entertained, whether wrong mentioning of the title in the revision of it being filed under the provisions of Section 219 of the Act, 1901 would render it liable to be dismissed ?,
16. The said issue is no longer res integra considering that it is settled proposition of law that mere mentioning of wrong provision of law in the title would not render the said application to be rejected rather the Board of Revenue correctly proceeded to entertain and decide the same and the said decision would have to be under the provisions of Section 210 of the Code, 2006 which is akin to Section 219 of the Act, 1901.
16. This aspect of the matter would also be clear from the heading of the revision filed by the applicant which itself indicates that a revision was being filed under the provisions of Section 219 of the Act, 1901 along with Section 210 of the Code, 2006.
17. The next question which arises is as to whether when the said revision has been entertained and an order passed, as to whether the applicant has a remedy of having the said order enforced.
18. For this, the Court has taken the assistance of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual (hereinafter referred to as "Manual") which provides in Chapter 43 Clause 460 for compliance of a decree or order passed by the Board of Revenue under the provisions of the Code, 2006 or rules framed under the provisions of Code, 2006. Clause 460 clearly provides that any decree or order passed under the provisions of the Code, 2006 can be executed as per the procedure prescribed in Chapter 5 of the Manual.
19. Consequently, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K.S.Raju (supra) as well as the provisions of Chapter 43 Clause 460 it is apparent that the applicant would have a remedy of having the orders dated 13.12.2017 and 11.02.2020 enforced under the provisions of the Manual and thus, once such a remedy is available to the applicant, this Court declines to issue notice in the contempt proceedings.
20. The contempt petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 SK Goswami/ Pachhere (Abdul Moin, J.)