Decided on October 25,1957



- (1.) THIS is an application under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying that the respondent, who is the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee of patiala, has committed contempt of Court and he should be suitably punished.
(2.) THE allegations of the petitioner are that he has been in possession of a piece of land measuring 252 square yards at Patiala for a long time. He received a notice dated 13th February, 1953, from the respondent as the Executive Officer of the municipal Committee of Patiala, under Sections 172/195 of the Punjab Municipal act, stating that a notice under Section 172 had been served upon him for removing the illegal construction but he had not complied with it. Therefore, notice under Section 220 was being given for removing the illegal construction and he was called upon to demolish or remove the kitchen within six hours failing which the structure would be got demolished through the government labour. On receiving this notice, the petitioner on 21st of February, 1953, brought a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge Second Class, Patiala, impleading the Municipal Committee, Patiala, as the defendant. The prayer in the suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the petitioner's kitchen, alleged to have been constructed long ago on the land which had been under his possession. In the plaint, it was stated, that he had been in possession of the site for over forty years and he had constructed a kitchen which was shown as 'a' in the attached plan. He had been aggrieved by the service of the notice upon him by the defendant. The site where the kitchen had been constructed was not a municipal street and, therefore, the question of encroachment did not arise. On the other hand, the petitioner had been in possession of the site as an owner. He further stated that the kitchen had been constructed more than twelve years ago. The Municipal Committee submitted a written statement dated 7th of May, 1953, traversing the pleas of the petitioner. The power of attorney in favour of the defendant's counsel had been signed by the respondent as the Executive Officer. On 31st of May, 1954, the Subordinate Judge Second Class, Patiala, decreed the petitioner's suit and granted an injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering or obstructing the petitioner's enjoyment of possession of the site in dispute. The Subordinate Judge found, after perusal of the documents placed on the record, that the petitioner Narain Singh and his father had been in possession of this site for a long time and there was no evidence on the record that the site belonged to the Municipal Committee. He also found that there was no encroachment upon the public street and Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act had, therefore, no application and the Committee had no right to deliver any notice under that section to the petitioner. The site did not vest in the Committee. Consequently the injunction as prayed for was granted.
(3.) ON 13th of May, 1955, the respondent, as the Executive Officer, sent a notice under Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act to the petitioner stating, that information had been received that he had constructed a kitchen on municipal land without obtaining sanction under Section 189 (1) of the Act. He was, therefore, informed that this illegal construction (khilaf warzi) should be removed within seven days of the receipt of this notice. The Very next day, the petitioner sent a reply to the Executive Officer to the effect that the notice sent by him was illegal and tantamount to disobedience to the order of the Court passed in Civil Suit No. 142 on 31st of May, 1954. He also stated that the land upon which the construction stood did not belong to the patiala Municipal Committee and it appeared that the respondent and some members of his staff were harassing him out of enmity.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.