The applicant has taken out this application with following prayers:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to take appropriate action against the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent No.3 for misinterpreting the order dated 4.10.2011 of this Hon'ble Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 7691 of 2011 and further be pleased to clarify that by virtue of the order dated 4.10.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 7691 of 2011, the respondent No.3 is not required to make a stipulation in Entry No.2123 for the land in question that the Entry does not confer any right, title or interest over the property in question;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate directions quashing and setting aside stipulation in Entry No.2123 dated 23.11.2011 made by the respondent No.3 that the Entry does not confer any right, title or interest over the property in question;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to take appropriate action against the concerned respondent authorities for deliberately trying to misinterpret and disobey the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 4.10.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.7691 of 2011;
(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. This application is entitled as 'Application for further Clarification of the order dated 4/10/2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7691 of 2011.'
3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicants has invited this Court's attention to page-15 on which the order dated 4/10/2011 is reproduced which was passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7691 of 2011.
4. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that after this order, Entry No. 2123 is recorded, wherein once again the endorsement is appended that this entry alone would not confer any right of ownership upon any one.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the order dated 4/10/2011 is not required to be clarified in any manner. If, unfortunately the officer concerned responsible for carrying out this order is unable to understand the order, then, it was for him to seek necessary advice from either his superior or learned Government Pleader. The Court may not keep on issuing writs after writs on the same cause of action. The officer, who is responsible for making the entry, is answerable to the appropriate forum, including the forum in the proceeding under Contempt of Court Act. Therefore, in my view, this Misc. Civil Application is not tenable in the eye of law.
6. Before parting with this order, this Court has to observe that it is indeed unfortunate that the officer concerned who is responsible for carrying out the direction contained in the order is incapable of understanding the order, such an officer, if he is indeed incapable of understanding the order cannot be permitted to continue on the post and, if he has acted deliberately or under the dictates of someone, then, all the more he has no justification to continue in the post. This observations were required to be made as the litigant has to move the Court for no reason whatsoever, despite there being an order existing on record.
7. This application is disposed of with a liberty to the applicants to take out appropriate proceeding, including to bring contempt petition against the concerned, or substantive petition. However there shall be no order as to costs.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top