- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Isa Khan for the applicant and Sri P. N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Saxena, learned Counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) THIS contempt petition has been filed by a Statutory Authority i. e. Cantonment Board, Meerut through its Executive Officer. It is alleged that inspite of the injunction order dated 27-1-2005 as extended from time to time passed in writ petition No. 3526 of 2005, the opposite parties have raised constructions and in fact had constructed a huge building in the nature of a shopping Mall over the disputed land. Bungalow Nos. 176 and 176 A-C admeasuring to about 0. 436 acres is situated at Chappel Street in the Meerut Cantonment and is maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925 and thereafter under 1937 rules. The said bungalow is reflected in the general land register as survey No. 357/1749 and is classified as B-3 and it stands in the name of Smt. Berma Devi wife of Om Prakash, Prem Prakash, Ashok Kumar and Kishan Kumar, who are holders of occupancy right as old grant. During the inspection of the said premises by the officials of the Board, it was found that the opposite parties who were neither recorded nor had any licence or lease over the said bungalow were engaged in fresh erection over the premises without there being any building plan sanctioned or approved by the Board. After preparing a due report with sketch plan etc. , proceedings under the Cantonment Act, 1924 were initiated. When the constructions did not cease an order for sealing the premises was passed under the Public Premises Act on 19th August, 2004. However, the seal was broken and a First Information Report to the aforesaid effect was lodged on 27th November, 2004. Nevertheless, aggrieved against the said sealing order the opposite party preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal No. 116 of 2004 before the Additional District Judge, Meerut. The said appeal was allowed on a technical point but holding that in case any constructions are made the Board may take consequential legal action. The Board aggrieved against the said order preferred the aforesaid writ petition where the said injunction order was passed. The operative portion of which is quoted below: "till the next date of listing, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are restrained from making any further construction over property in question. " This order was extended from time to time.
(3.) IT is alleged that in spite of the aforesaid injunction when the officials of the Board inspected the premises on 23rd February, 2005 work was going on and the officials were restrained from entering the premises. However, a report and map was prepared and is annexed with the contempt petition. Upon issuance of notice, the opposite parties have filed their counter-affidavit stating that no construction were either made earlier to the injunction nor after the injunction and in fact the old house was being repaired. This consistent stand runs throughout the counter-affidavit. This stand was vehemently denied by the Counsel for the Board. Therefore, on the request of the parties, a two members commission of two learned Advocates of this Court was appointed by the order dated 26th May, 2006.;