K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.
1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Contempt Court is justified in determining on what price the proprietory rights are to be conferred upon the petitioners
2. The learned Single Judge who heard the contempt case has passed an interim order on December 16,. 2004 which is as good as a final order holding that the respondents (contemnors) cannot demand more than Rs. 2 lacs per kanal to transfer the proprietory rights in favour of the petitioners.
3. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and its officers have come up with this appeal against the interim order passed by the learned Judge in the contempt proceedings, contending that Contempt Court has no jurisdiction to determine the amount to be paid by the petitioners for transfer of proprietary rights.
4. Writ petition No. 933/95 was preferred by the petitioners (respondents herein) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the leased land measuring 6 kanals, 8 marlas and 212 square feet under Khasra No. 146 and 213/min situated in Estate Kothibagh, Sriangar, in favour of the petitioners on proprietary basis and also for, other consequential reliefs. Contention was raised before the learned Single Judge that the petitioners were entitled to proprietary rights in terms of Government Order dated August 17, 1981 while the State and its officers took up the stand that the petitioners were not entitled to get proprietory rights in terms of the above mentioned order since the same was substituted by another order dated September 24, 1985.
5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing respondents to grant proprietary rights in favour of the petitioners in terms of Government Order dated August 17, 1981. While holding so, the learned Single Judge observed as follows:
So whether the petitioners are entitled to proprietory rights in terms of order dated 17.8.1981 or government order dated 24.9.1985 will depend upon as to when petitioners applied for grant of proprietary rights. Their specific case is that, they applied immediately after the issue of govt. order dated 17.8.1981. It is also their case that number of persons who had applied under the aforesaid orders were granted proprietory rights. These averments have not been denied by the respondents. The State has simply stated that the order dated 17.8.1981 has been substituted by order dated 24.9.1985. This is no ground to defeat the right which has accrued in favour of the petitioners under govt. order dated 17.8.1981 because even if a single person has been given the benefit of earlier order and the petitioners' case not processed for whatever reason before the issue of order dated 24.9.1985, they cannot be denied the benefit of earlier order.
6. Petitioners then filed the contempt petition, COA (W) No. 32/2003, for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance with the directions given by this Court. While the contempt case was pending, the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, sent a communication dated December 4, 2004 to the Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar referring to a joint report dated December 1,2004 of Tehsildar, Srinagar and Tehsildar Nazool, fixing the market value per kanal of land at Rs. 50.00 lacs prevalent on that date. Request was made to the Divisional Commissioner to get the confirmation of rate of Rs. 50.00 lacs per kanal from the Administrative Department so as to give a direction to the petitioners to deposit this amount for conferment of proprietory rights in their favour in, pursuance of the judgment. Petitioners questioned the correctness or otherwise of the communication dated December 4,2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner fixing Rs. 50.00 lacs as price per kanal of land for conferment of proprietory rights in favour of the petitioners in the contempt of court proceedings. Petitioners stated before the learned Single Judge that Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar was not justified in ignoring his previous communication dated December 24, 1983 addressed to the Government wherein it was stated that proprietary rights could be conferred on the petitioners on payment of premium of Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal.
7. Communication dated December 24,1983 was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, J&K; Government, Jammu before rendering the original judgment dated April 17, 2000. The correctness or otherwise of the communication dated December 24, 1983 was not the subject matter of writ petition, OWP No. 933/1995. Further, the correctness or otherwise of fixing Rs. 50.00 lacs per kanal was also not an issue before the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 933/1995.
8. The Contempt Court, however, went on to decide on what price proprietary rights are to be conferred upon the petitioners and held as follows:
The rights of the parties stood determined way back in 1983 when the price was assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar. The respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of the delay, which was solely on their part. The respondents, thus, cannot demand more than Rs. 2 lacs per kanal to transfer the proprietory rights in favour of petitioners.
9. The question as to whether the petitioners could get proprietory rights on payment of Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal or by paying Rs. 50.00 lacs per kanal as we have already indicated, was not the subject matter of the writ petition, OWP No. 933/1995 and the only question which was decided by the learned Single Judge in the above mentioned writ petition was whether writ petitioners were entitled to get proprietory rights in terms of Government Order dated August 17,1981 or the order dated September 24,1985 and the Court had held that they are entitled to the benefit of the Government order dated August 17,1981. The learned Judge had not rendered any finding on the price to be paid by the petitioners for transferring the proprietory rights.
10. Law is well settled Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order.
11. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to go into a question which has not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The Court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not consider the question as to what the judgment to order and not consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. Contempt Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be proper to direct the parties to approach the Court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order. Principles are well explained in the decisions of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Sadashiv Zamindar : AIR1997SC113 ; Jhareshwar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly : 2002CriLJ2935 ; Naval Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 4421 and Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda : 2006CriLJ2903 .
12. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge while exercising contempt of court jurisdiction has committed an error in determining on what price proprietory rights are to be conferred upon the petitioner and then giving a declaration that the State and its officers cannot demand more than Rs. 2,00 lacs per kanal for transferring proprietory rights in favour of the petitioners.
13. We have already referred to the communication dated December 4,2004 from Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar wherein the stand taken was that the proprietor/rights could be conferred on the petitioners only on payment of Rs. 50.00 lacs per kanal. A Copy of the communication was also addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, which is stated to be the stand of the State Government as well. Petitioners, if aggrieved by that decision have to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, if so advised, in event of which that forum will decide the correctness or otherwise of the order passed
14. We, therefore, hold that the learned Judge has exercised his contempt of court jurisdiction while determining the price of land for conferring proprietory rights on the petitioners.
15. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the contempt petition. We do so.