B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a Biswedar in tehsil Tibbi (district Sri Ganganagar), whose land, after coming into force of the Zamidari and Biswedari Abolition Act (for short the Act) vested in the State Government on November 15, 1959. After the vesting of the land in the State Government the applicant applied for allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land under the provisions of the Act in the year 1959. This application remained pending with the respondents and after a prolonged litigation, the Division Bench of this Court in a D.B. Civil Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner on July 19, 1991, directed the State Government to allot to the petitioner the Khudkasht land upto the limit of fifty Bighas as per the Rules within twelve months from the date of judgment. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, inspite of a specific direction given by the Division Bench of the Court, did not allot the land to the petitioner, rather by his order dated August 17, 1991, granted time to the Government Pleader to file a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order dated July 29, 1991, passed by the Board of Revenue. Dissatisfied with the order dated August 16, 1991, passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court. This writ petition was allowed on January 20, 1992, and the respondents were directed to make allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land in favour of the petitioner before July 18, 1992, in Chak 2 NWN or within the tehsils of Tibbi or Hanumangarh, as the land is available with the respondents for allotment in these two tehsils." After the order dated January 20, 1992, passed by this Court, the petitioner and other fourteen persons, in whose favour the judgment was delivered, made application before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, for the allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land in their favour in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, vide his order dated July 2, 1992, in clear violation of the directions given by this Court, made allotment of fifty Bighas of command land to each of the fifteen applicants in colonization tehsil of Nachna in II phase of Indira Gandhi Nahar Project. When the allotment was not made to the petitioner as per the directions given by this Court, the petitioner, therefore, moved the present contempt petition bringing it to the notice of this Court that the respondent-contemnor Shri K.S. Galundia the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, has flouted the order passed by this Court and, therefore, contempt proceedings may be initiated against him and he should be adequately punished for the same. The notices of the contempt petition were issued to the contemnor Shri K.S. Galundia the Collector, Sri Ganganagar who appeared in person and filed his reply. In the reply filed by the contemnor, he tried to justify his action in not complying with the directions given by this Court and stated that the allotment has been made as per the directions of the Division Bench of the this Court in its judgment dated July 19, 1991, and a special appeal against the order of the Single Bench was filed which is still pending in this Court. Though in paragraph Number 6 of the reply, it has been stated that the special appeal is still pending in the High Court, but in the concluding paragraph of the reply, relating to the prayer-clause, it has been mentioned that the special appeal, filed by the State, has been dismissed but the State Government is likely to take a decision to file Special Leave Petition against this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the limitation to file such Special Leave Petition has not yet expired. The respondent, in the first paragraph of the reply, has also tendered unconditional apology.
(2.) The short question, which requires consideration in the present case is; whether the respondent has flouted the order passed by this Court and acted in clear violation of the directions given by this Court and he is, therefore, guilty of the contempt of the Court ? For constituting the offence of the contempt of the Court, willful conduct of the contemnor is the primary and basic ingredient. It has, therefore, to be seen : whether the respondent has wilfully disobeyed, ignored or by-passed the judgment passed by this Court and did not comply with the directions issued by this Court ? While pronouncing the judgment, this Court specifically directed the respondent to make allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land to the petitioner in Chak 2 NWN or within the tehsils of Tibbi or Hanumangarh, as the land is available with the respondent for allotment in these two tehsils. The order passed by this Court is clear and unambiguous and the respondent-contemnor had the notice of the terms of the order. The respondent, while making allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 2.7.92, tried to consider the legality and validity of the order passed by this Court as if he was sitting in appeal and observed as under: "The order of the Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court has already been challenged in Division Bench which could not come-up for hearing. According to me, the matter is sub judice. Therefore, I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has no choice except to allot the land of Chak 2 NWN in tehsil Hanumangarh." In the judgment, he further observed as under : "Without meaning any disrespect to the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 20.1.92, I am of the view that the land of Chak 2 NWN, tehsil Hanumangharh, does not fall in Category IV of Section, 13(1) of the Rajasthan Zamidari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959, and, therefore, it cannot be allotted to the petitioner." ".......It is an admitted fact that the land of Chak 2 NWN is required by the Ministry of Defence. They have revived their earlier intention for allotment, on which correspondence is pending between the State Government and the Ministry of Defence. Looking to the public interest, also, it will not be advisable to allot this land to the applicant."
(3.) The respondent, in reply to the contempt notice, trial to take shelter of the judgment dated 19.7.91, passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In the reply, the respondent stated as under: "The order, dated 20.1.92, of the Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and the order dated 19.7.91 of the learned Division Bench of the High Court were on the same subject and were at variance with each other and, therefore, according to the established judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the undersigned comply with the order of the Higher Bench of the Hon'ble High Court." " The learned Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court had given directions vide its order dated 19.7.91, to make allotment to the petitioner before July 18, 1992. The learned Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 20.1.92, gave directions for allotment of the land to the petitioner in Chak 2 NWN or within the tehsils of Tibbi or Hanumangarh. Against this order, the State Government has preferred an appeal before the learned Division Bench of the High Court which was pending. In view of the above position, there was no option before the respondent but to make allotment as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court given in its order dated 19.7.91." ".... It is further prayed that the Special Appeals filed to the State Government against the order dated 20.1.92, have since been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its orders dated 4.8.92, 27.8.92, 1.9.92, 3.9.92 and 4.9.92, but the State Government is likely to take a decision to file Special Leave Petition as against these orders in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the limitation to file the same has not yet expired.";