PATHERYA J. - (1.) IN this contempt application the petitioner has alleged violation of order dated 28th April, 2010. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 28th April, 2010 the respondent No.5 was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties and by passing a reasoned order. The decree passed on 23rd December, 1985 and the order passed by the High Court on 5th January, 1994 was directed to be considered. In the meantime, no step was to be taken in respect of the project undertaken. Title Suit No.2 of 1980 was filed by one Haran Chandra Das, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner which suit was decreed on contest and although an appeal was filed the same was dismissed for default. The misc. case filed was also dismissed on contest. Inspite of the aforesaid no step was taken by the State to divest the said plots of land and include the name of the petitioner, although it was decreed that the said plots belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, in the record of rights. Accordingly a writ petition was filed and an order was passed by Altamas Kabir, J. directing the BL & LRO, Ranaghat II, Nadia to correct the record of rights but no step was taken and a contempt application was filed, the said contempt application has however lapsed. In November, 2009 it was noticed that some members of the Ranaghat II Panchayet Samity and the Baidyapur II Gram Panchayet were surveying the decreed plots for the purposes of setting up a water project under the Sajal Dhara Prokolpa. A representation was made and for non-consideration of such representation W.P. 24088 (W) of 2009 was filed and order dated 28th April, 2010 was passed.
(2.) IN spite of the representation of the legal heirs and representatives of Haran Chandra Das, the decree-holder, the BL & LRO registered the said decreed plots in favour of third parties. Such third parties filed a suit, which was dismissed and the appeal filed was also dismissed on 21st April, 2010. In April 2010 the Sajal Dhara Scheme came into effect. By letter dated 12.12.2009 the order dated 5th January, 2009 was sent to the office of the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat II, Nadia. The said was received by the BL & LRO on 14.12.2009. In spite thereof a no objection was taken from Bimal Kumar Moulik and the other purported owners of the said plots for the Sajal Dhara Scheme, in January, 2010 by the Panchayet Samity. The order was passed on 28th April, 2010 by this Court and from the photographs it will appear that steps were taken to continue with the project work by erecting structure and construction of boundary wall and all persons involved in the project work of Sajal Dhara have violated the order dated 28th April, 2010 and are guilty of contempt. In the opposition filed to the Rule by Anjan Ghosh the alleged contemnor/respondent No.1 on 20th June, 2012, letters have been annexed from the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat, Nadia to the Assistant Engineer, PHE Directorate, Krishnanagar, Nadia whereby directions were given to stop all construction work over the three plots in question. In spite of receipt of the said letters and communication of the High Court's order there has been no compliance thereof. Therefore all the respondents be held guilty of contempt.
(3.) COUNSEL for the alleged contemnor/respondents submits that there has been no violation of the order dated 28th April, 2010. The work undertaken was in respect of Sajal Dhara Scheme. The representation is dated 11th January, 2010. On receipt of the said order a notice of hearing was issued on 17th May, 2010 fixing the date of hearing on 25th May, 2010. The said notice was served on not only the petitioner, who received the same but also on other interested parties. On 25th May, 2010 the parties were represented at hearing. The matter was then adjourned till 10th June, 2010 on which date after hearing once again the matter was adjourned till 25th June, 2010 when the order was passed. Thus the representation dated 11th January, 2010 has been disposed of in compliance with the order dated 28th April, 2010. Not only was the order read out and explained to the parties but the parties were also directed to obtain certified copies.;