Sunil Kumar Sinha and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
chotanagpur tenancy act, 1908 - section 46--registration act, 1908--section 17--restoration of land--belonging to a member of scheduled tribe--passed by the commissioner, north chotanagpur division--respondent found to be dispossessed from the disputed land by fraudulent method--held, decision taken by commissioner for restoration of land not to be interfered. - constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this writ application is directed against the orders passed by the authorities under chhotanagpur tenancy act, whereby an order for restoration of the land in question has been passed in favour of the concerned respondent, who is a member of scheduled tribe.3. this is one of the glaring example as to how the members of the scheduled tribe are deprived of from their land by fraudulent method. admittedly, the land belongs to the raiyat mangra oraon. the story made out by the petitioners and their predecessor in interest is that in 1967 mangra oraon relinquished the disputed land. there is no document of relinquishment. relinquishment is also a transfer which is hit by section 46 of the cnt act for want of permission from the deputy commissioner and also hit by section 17 of the registration act for want of registration. therefore, the first transaction by wayof relinquishment is illegal. immediately, thereafter in order to give a seal of a court of law, a collusive suit was filed by a person who came in possession of the land and that suit got to have been filed by mangra oraon against hia lal singh. although the suit was against a member of scheduled tribe, the deputy commissioner was not made party. in that suit a compromise petition was field and a decree was obtained. it is, therefore, clear that the compromise decree itself is a nullity and no reliance can be attached to that decree. on the basis of that decree hia lal then transferred the land to ram chhabila ram and ram chhabila in his turn transferred the land to the present petitioners in 1988. thereafter, for the first time, evidence of possession was created by obtaining rent receipts from the office of the circle officer. hazaribagh.4. in the aforesaid background of the case, i have no reason to disagree with the view taken by the commissioner, north chhotanagpur division that the concerned respondent was dispossessed from the land by fraudulent method and application for restoration under section 46(4), cnt act was filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession.for the reason aforesaid, i am not inclined to interfere with the orders. this writ application is dismissed.5. writ application dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ application is directed against the orders passed by the authorities under Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, whereby an order for restoration of the land in question has been passed in favour of the concerned respondent, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe.

3. This is one of the glaring example as to how the members of the Scheduled Tribe are deprived of from their land by fraudulent method. Admittedly, the land belongs to the raiyat Mangra Oraon. The story made out by the petitioners and their predecessor in interest is that in 1967 Mangra Oraon relinquished the disputed land. There is no document of relinquishment. Relinquishment is also a transfer which is hit by Section 46 of the CNT Act for want of permission from the Deputy Commissioner and also hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act for want of registration. Therefore, the first transaction by wayof relinquishment is illegal. Immediately, thereafter in order to give a seal of a court of law, a collusive suit was filed by a person who came in possession of the land and that suit got to have been filed by Mangra Oraon against Hia Lal Singh. Although the suit was against a member of Scheduled Tribe, the Deputy Commissioner was not made party. In that suit a compromise petition was field and a decree was obtained. It is, therefore, clear that the compromise decree itself is a nullity and no reliance can be attached to that decree. On the basis of that decree Hia Lal then transferred the land to Ram Chhabila Ram and Ram Chhabila in his turn transferred the land to the present petitioners in 1988. Thereafter, for the first time, evidence of possession was created by obtaining rent receipts from the office of the Circle Officer. Hazaribagh.

4. In the aforesaid background of the case, I have no reason to disagree with the view taken by the Commissioner, North chhotanagpur Division that the concerned respondent was dispossessed from the land by fraudulent method and application for restoration under Section 46(4), CNT Act was filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession.

For the reason aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders. This writ application is dismissed.

5. Writ application dismissed.