M.Y.EQBAL.J. - (1.) REFERENCE may be made to the order dated 24.2.2009 which reads as under: It appears that in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr PC between the Petitioner and one Kamal Singh, the order of attachment under Section 146(1) was passed on 22.10.2001 and the building known as "Winfred Villa" was attached. The said order dated 22.10.2001 was recalled by the Executive Magistrate, Jamtara on 25.7.2006 but after the recall of the attachment order, the building was not handed over to the Petitioner from whom it was attached. The Petitioner, then, moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5820 of 2002. In the said writ petition, it was stated by the State that after the order of attachment was passed; the Officer -in -Charge, Jamtara, became the Guardian of the said property, and it was necessary for the police to be present in the premises. However, it was stated that the Sub -Divisional Officer has already directed the police to release the property in favour of the Petitioner. In the aforesaid fact, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to see that the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jamtara on 25.07.2006 is complied with, failing which, the matter will be viewed seriously. When the aforesaid order passed by this Court was not complied with, the instant contempt proceeding was initiated against the officers of the Respondents. A show -cause was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara, stating, inter alia, that after the attachment of the building, the police out post was started running but, subsequently, it was shifted to another place. It is further stated that the order has been complied with. After the show -cause was filed, the matter was placed on 25.1.2008 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice (as he then was). The Bench observed that there is no mention in the show -cause that the order has been complied with inasmuch as in the show -cause nothing has been said that the property in question has been handed over to the Petitioner. The Bench, therefore, by order dated 25.1.2008 directed the opposite parties to comply with the order within ten days. Today, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that till date the Respondents have not handed over the possession of the building in question. If that is so, it is a total disregard of the order. Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the police has already vacated the premises, and it is for the Sub -Divisional Officer to hand over possession to the Petitioner. It is a clear case of high - handedness on the part of the officers of the State, and if the orders of this Court are not complied with, there shall be no rule of law in the State. We, therefore, direct the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jamtara, and the Officer -in -Charge, Jamtara Police Station to appear, in person, on 03.03.2009 and to show -cause as to why appropriate order be not passed against them for flouting and disobeying the direction issued by this Court. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order, the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jamatara and the Officer -in -Charge, Jamtara Police Station have appeared in person and filed show -cause. We have heard the parties. Learned Advocate General in course of argument submitted that although there is a serious dispute with regard to title and possession between the parties, but the Respondents have to comply the order of this Court by handing over possession of the property to the Petitioner. However, learned Advocate General submitted that some time may be allowed for compliance of the order.
(3.) HAVING regard to the fair stand taken by the learned Advocate General, I accept the assurance given by the Officers present here that possession of the property shall be handed over to the Petitioner and thereby the order and direction shall be complied with.;