Patna High Court: The Division Bench of K. Vinod Chandran, C.J., and Partha Sarthy, J., opined that there was deliberate contempt as made out from the facts and the demolition carried out on 12-08-2023 was without any further notice to the appellant and was in total violation of the interim orders. Thus, this Court directed the Registry to initiate a contempt case against the contemnors, that is, Respondents 2 to 6, namely, (a) Animesh Kumar Parashar, Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation; (b) Sheela Irani, Additional Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation; (c) Prabhat Ranjan, Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation; (d) Vijay Kumar, Executive Engineer, Patna Municipal Commissioner; and (e) Md. Shamsad, the Project Director, Patna Smart City.
The original writ petition was filed alleging that the appellant had been in possession of a land by virtue of a sale deed dated 02-06-1987. The land on which the appellant claimed title was having Municipal Survey Plot No. 8, Ward No.34, Circle No.235, Holding No. 124/175 admeasuring 1989 sq.ft. The allegation was that, despite appellant’s continued possession, based on title, the respondent was proceeding for demolition of the building and had already demolished a portion of the commercial building situated on the land. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 31-08-2022. Hence, the present appeal was filed.
The Division Bench noted that the property was originally leased out to the respondent for 30 years, in 1951, which lease would have expired in 1981 and the alleged sale to the appellant was after the lease period. The Division Bench also noted the disparity in the numbers of the subject property, the leased property bearing no. 19, while the possession asserted of the appellant was on Plot No. 8. The Division Bench noted that the appellant was in occupation for the last three decades and the partial demolition was brought about after drawing a red line on the part of the building which was styled as an encroachment; without taking appropriate proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. The Division Bench thus expressed surprise at the manner in which the respondent had taken up action for demolition. Thus, the Division Bench opined that prima facie, the respondent had acted in a hasty manner and therefore, restrained the respondent from taking precipitate action.
This Court opined that the interim order of stay by the Division Bench was not till the necessary facts were placed on record but till there was a final decision taken by the Court as to the title of the property. This Court heard the matter earlier on 11-08-2023 and had opined that even dehors a lease or a finding of its renewal or also a valid title; with uninterrupted possession there should be appropriate proceedings taken in accordance with law for evicting a person in possession, even if he/she was a rank trespasser.
This Court opined that it had reserved the matter for judgement after making it clear to both the parties that after going through the records once more, this Court would either dismiss the application or direct proceedings to be initiated in accordance with law. This Court further opined that it was after the matter was reserved that the demolition was carried out by the respondent.
Thus, this Court opined that there was deliberate contempt as made out from the facts and the demolition carried out on 12-08-2023 was without any further notice to the appellant and was in total violation of the interim orders.
This Court noted that Respondent 4, who had carried out the demolition, admitted that it was done on the verbal orders of the Commissioner of the respondent. The Court further opined that it would have taken the proceedings further, but both the Judges, who were Members of the Division Bench which passed the interim order, were present and sitting in the Patna High Court. Hence, judicial discipline and decorum required to refer the matter for consideration by that Division Bench.
This Court appointed Advocate Prashant Sinha as the Court Commissioner to inspect the site cordoned off by the police on the directions of this Court and file a report before this Court by 16-08-2023.
This Court directed the Registry to initiate a contempt case against the contemnors, that is, Respondents 2 to 6, namely, (a) Animesh Kumar Parashar, Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation; (b) Sheela Irani, Additional Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation; (c) Prabhat Ranjan, Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation; (d) Vijay Kumar, Executive Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation; and (e) Md. Shamsad, the Project Director, Patna Smart City.
[Shailja Vajpei v. Municipal Corporation, Patna, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 2522, Order dated 13-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant/s: Shravan Kumar, Senior Advocate; Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate;
For the State: Anjani Kumar, AAG-IV;
For the Corporation: Sanjay Prakash Verma, Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocates.