Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed on the allegation of violation of the order dated 08.03.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13331 of 2011.
The facts as pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the application are that vide order dated 12.06.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the name of the applicant was directed to be recorded as Bhumidhar with non-transferable right over the land in dispute on the basis of alleged resolution said to have been passed by the land management committee making allotment of the said land in his favour. The applicant initiated proceedings under Section 109-A read with Section 52 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for giving effect to and incorporation of his name on the basis of the order dated 12.06.1987 in the revenue records some time ion 1992. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 05.03.1992 directing to record the name of the applicant in the revenue records. The order dated 12.06.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer was challenged in appeal some time in the year 1998. The Settlement Officer Consolidation while hearing appeal summoned the record of the proceeding under Rule 109-A. When the said records were not sent by the Tehsil office to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the applicant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition no. 13331 of 2011. The writ court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to produce the original record. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate produced the original files before the Court on 08.03.2011 and the writ petition was disposed of with direction that the record be transmitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation who shall proceed to decide the appeal within two months.
The allegation made in the affidavit is that the opposite parties deliberately and willfully withhold the original records of case no. 172, 173, 174, 175 and 176 which were produced before this Court and did not transmit the same to the Settlement Officer Consolidation and on the contrary some other records were transmitted and thus are in contempt.
Counter affidavit/Affidavit of compliance has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that at the time of hearing the writ petition as a fresh case on 07.03.2011, this Court required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter. Learned Standing Counsel informed about the matter on Mobile and also send a Fax letter dated 07.03.2011 to the District Magistrate, Kaushambi. In pursuance whereof instructions were prepared and two original files pertaining to allotment of land was sent by special messenger to the learned Standing Counsel. The alleged instruction dated 07.03.2011 sent to the learned Standing Counsel has been filed as Annexure '1' to the affidavit. The said letter records that record and file of Asami Patta made in favour of the applicant is being sent to be produced before the Court. After the records were produced before the Court, the writ petition was disposed of with direction to transmit the said record to the Settlement Officer Consolidation. It is further pleaded that the record which was sent to be produced before this Court was transmitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation as directed by this Court. With respect to file no. 172 of 176 as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been mentioned that the said files were requisitioned by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide letter dated 16.03.2011 and after search in the record-room when the said files were not found available, the Settlement Officer Consolidation was informed of the fact vide letter dated 28.03.2011.
In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, the allegations have been denied and it has been mentioned that opposite parties deliberately neither produced the original record before this Court nor transmitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation hence they are in contempt.
The entire controversy revolves around the fact whether the same records, which were produced before this Court, were forwarded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation or the original record which was produced before this Court was withheld and some other records were summoned.
A perusal of Annexure CA '1' clearly goes to show that the record which was produced before this Court was in respect of plot no. 986 area 0.502 Hectare which was allotted to the applicant as Asami Patta for a period of five years in 1994. A perusal of Annexure '3' goes to show that the same allotment file was forwarded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation along with the letter dated 09.03.2011.
Although nothing is recorded in the order but it cannot be presumed that the writ court would have directed to transmit the record to the Settlement Officer Consolidation without perusing the same. If there was any anomaly, the writ court would have definitely noticed that required record has not been produced. Thus, there is no reason to believe the allegation that the record produced before this Court was not sent to Settlement Officer Consolidation. In so far as the allegation made by the applicant with respect to files no. 172 to 176 of the Consolidation Officer is concerned, the opposite parties on requisition sent by the Settlement Officer Consolidation clearly informed him that the said files are not available in the record-room.
In view of the aforesaid facts, no case for contempt as alleged can be said to be made out.
The contempt notices are discharged.
Let the contempt application be consigned to record.
Order Date :- 5.4.2012 Dcs