Smt. Madhuri Devi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Dumka Division and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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. - 122/71-72 was registered in which the original petitioners as well as chhotu mian and yakub mian and other complainants were impleaded as parties. the learned single judge has rightly held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to failure of the petitioners to implead the necessary parties to the writ application. 9. furthermore, finding of the sub-divisional officer that neither deep narayan lal singh nor his son haribilash srivastava were residing in the village, is based on the local inspection conducted by the sub-divisional officer as well as on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the anchal adhikari.d.g.r. patnaik, j.1. challenge in this appeal is against the order of the learned single judge whereby the writ application filed by the petitioners vide cwjc no. 3735 of 1986 was dismissed.2. prayer in the writ application, as made by the petitioner, was that pursuant to the order dated 24th january, 1979 (annexure-4) passed by the sub-divisional officer, dumka in r.e. case no. 121/71-72, the land under reference in this case was declared as ferari (abandoned) land and direction was issued to settle the same with the landless scheduled tribe jamabandi raiyats. a further prayer was made for quashing the order dated 10.7.1981 (annexure-5) passed by the additional deputy commissioner, dumka whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and also for quashing the order dated 22/29.5.1986 (annexure-6) passed by the commissioner, santhal pargana whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the sub divisional officer, dumka was dismissed.3. the case of the petitioners in brief is that one deep narayan lal singh, father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 was in possession of land under reference in this case and jamabandi was created in his name alongwith others, namely, suraj singh, ganga singh and pratap kumari. on the demise of the other co-sharers who died issueless, deep narayan lal singh remained as the only surviving claimant to the land. since he was in police service and posted elsewhere, he had hired servants to cultivate the land and continued to remain in cultivating possession of the land. after the death of the said deep narayan lal singh, his son haribilas srivastava succeeded the land and continued to remain in cultivating possession of the land.later, on the basis of an application filed by some rival claimants, the sub-divisional officer initiated a proceeding and had passed the impugned order declaring the land as abandoned land. it is claimed by the petitioners that sub-divisional officer, dumka has no authority under the law to declare the land as abandoned land in view of the fact that the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the same. it was also claimed that since there was no question of any illegal transfer of land, the provisions of section 20(5) of the santhal parganas tenancy act could not be applicable for exercise of any jurisdiction by the sub-divisional officer.the petitioners had wanted to place reliance on the voters list in support of their claim that they are the residents of the village in question and also upon the report submitted by the anchal adhikari to confirm that they used to cultivate the land through hired servants.4. the contesting respondent, namely, the pradhan of the village had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. it was pointed out by him that proceeding before the sub-divisional officer was initiated on the basis of the complaint preferred by one brahmadeo prasad srivastava and others who had also advanced their respective claims for settlement of the same land in their favour. the complainants/petitioners in r.e. case no. 121/71-72 were also made respondents in the proceeding before the appellate authority. yet, the said complainants/petitioners were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ application. the contesting respondents had also raised doubt regarding the genuineness of the original petitioner who preferred the writ application. contest was made also on the ground that the present petitioners were not the permanent residents of the village and that the inquiry made by the circle officer had confirmed that both deep narayan lal singh and his son haribilas srivastava were infact residents of ballia (u.p.) and they used to occasionally visit one of their acquaintances in the village.5. the learned single judge on assessing the facts of the case had found that one chhotu mian along with yakub mian and others had sought for settlement of the disputed land in their favour on the ground that they were cultivating the land. subsequently, at the instance of one brahmadeo prasad srivastava and others who were raiyats in the area, a proceeding vide r.e. case no. 122/71-72 was registered in which the original petitioners as well as chhotu mian and yakub mian and other complainants were impleaded as parties. the sub-divisional officer thereafter made a local inquiry and also called for a report from the anchal adhikari. the inquiry revealed that deep narayan singh was not residing in the village in question. rather, he was residing at ballia (u.p.). on the basis of the findings in the inquiry, the sub-divisional officer vide his order dated 24.1.1979 declared the land as abandoned land and ordered for settlement of the land in favour of the scheduled tribe jamabandi raiyats. it was also found that while deep narayan lal singh preferred an appeal against the order of the sub-divisional officer, a revision application was also preferred by one abdul rashid ansari and three others. the additional deputy commissioner, santhal parganas, dumka by his order dated 10.7.1981 disposed of the appeal and the revision and confirmed the order of the sub-divisional officer, whereby land was declared as abandoned land. however, the order of the sub-divisional officer for making settlement of the land in favour of members of the scheduled tribe was set aside.6. the learned single judge alter considering the factual aspects of the case, had observed that though, pradhan of the village was impleaded as party respondent on behalf of the 16 aanas raiyats, yet neither the complainants nor petitioners of r.e. case no. 121/71-72 were impleaded as party respondents in the writ application and further, that affidavit in the writ application was neither sworn by original petitioner, namely, haribilash srivastava, nor was subsequent affidavit for expunging the name of the original petitioner, sworn by any of his legal heirs. on the basis of these observations, the learned single judge dismissed the writ application, as not maintainable.7. in the present appeal, appellant has raised the same grounds as earlier raised in the writ application challenging the impugned order of the sub-divisional officer as being without authority and beyond jurisdiction.8. it is however admitted and as rightly observed by the learned single judge, the persons at whose instance proceedings before the sub-divisional officer was initiated vide r.e. case no. 121/71-72 were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ application. such persons were certainly necessary parties since they had also staked their claim over the lands and dispute in respect of such claim was raised by them in the proceeding before the sub-divisional officer. the dispute raised by the petitioners in the writ application could not therefore have been decided in absence of the necessary parties. the learned single judge has rightly held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to failure of the petitioners to implead the necessary parties to the writ application.9. furthermore, finding of the sub-divisional officer that neither deep narayan lal singh nor his son haribilash srivastava were residing in the village, is based on the local inspection conducted by the sub-divisional officer as well as on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the anchal adhikari. the learned single judge has rightly refused to interfere with the findings on fact.10. in the light of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal. accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j.11. i agree.