Mahant Lalita Sharanji v. Deoki Devi

DEEPAK GUPTA J. 1. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14543 of 2006, in which a prayer for grant of interim relief was made and it was prayed that this Court may gr ant ex parte stay of the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No . 12972 of 1984. Further prayer made was that Deoki Devi, be restrain ed from raising any construction over the land in dispute being part of Plot No. 212/2 situated on Vrindavan Chatikara Agra Main Road an d from changing the nature of the land in dispute. This Court, while issuing notice on this petition on 11.09.2006, directed that status quo sh all be maintained. Thereafter, leave was granted on 05.01.2009 and it was directed that the interim order was to continue. 2. Despite the interim orders, Deoki Devi raised construction whereafter the petitioner filed a complaint on 02.10.2010 before the Officer In-charge of Police Station Vrindavan and there after, filed Contempt Petition No. 258 of 2010 in this Court. Notice on th e said contempt petition was issued to Deoki Devi on 08.10.2010 and it wa s again directed vide order dated 22.11.2010 that no construction of any MAHANT LALITA SHARANJI v. DEOKI DEVI nature – temporary or permanent, shall be raised. When the contempt proceedings were pending, Deoki Devi filed reply to the same. Initially she contested the contempt proceedings but then she admitted that in the year 2010 heavy rains had lashed the area of Mathura-Vrinda van and because there was imminent danger to the building, she had carried out some repair works. However, on 31.01.2011, learned counsel appearing for Deoki Devi submitted that the offending construction had since been demolished. An undertaking was also given by Deoki Devi that she would not raise any construction on the said land and therefore, the contempt had been purged. Thereafter, on 21.02.2011, this Cour t disposed of the Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 258 of 2010 in the following terms: “After filing of the present petition, admittedly, substantial part of the offending construction carried out by the respondent – alleged contemnor has been demolished. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the subject property is now not habitable. Learned counsel further undertakes that whatever built up construction exists, the same shall not be used for human habitation till the disposal of the appeal. In view of the statement/undertaking, no further orders are called for in the contempt petition. It stands closed and the notice issued is discharged.” 3. The second Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1758 of 2017 was filed alleging that Deoki Devi had again raised construction on the very same land and was residing therein. Along with the contempt petition, photographs were filed which clearly show that a new house has been constructed. Just outside this fresh construction there is al so a sign board which advertises the fact that airconditioned and non-airconditioned rooms were available. Deoki Devi filed reply. According to her, she and her family members are residing in some other property, which is in close proximity to the subject property and the advertisement for letting out rooms was in respect of that property. However, thi s fact is not reflected from the sign board, which does not make mention of any other property. The only other defence taken by Deoki Devi was that she had demolished the construction earlier raised in the year 2011 and had ceased to use the house in terms of the undertaking given t o this Court. She submits that because the property was lyin g abandoned, 479 some bus operators had started parking their buses and some vagabonds started using the property for various activities. Even though she posted a guard there but due to the dilapidated nature of this proper ty, anti- social elements were attracted to the same and, therefore, she had carried out some maintenance work. According to her, all that she has done is to maintain the property in a manner to show that the property is in use. 4. The photographs filed depict a total different picture. W hat has been constructed is a fairly large house and when we compar e it with the photographs filed in the earlier contempt petition in the year 2011, it is apparent that the structure now built is totally different from the structure, which was demolished in the year 2011. In case Deoki Devi felt that the property is going to waste, the proper course for her was to approach this Court either for modification of the earlier order of injunction or to seek fresh order in order to protect the property. She could not have taken the law in her own hands and totally violated the interim order of injunction granted by this Court. The photographs of the property clearly show that it was being put to comme rcial and residential use. 5. The conduct of Deoki Devi is contemptuous. She had earlier disobeyed the injunction passed by this Court and after filing Contempt Petition No. 258 of 2010, had demolished the construction raised by her and had given a solemn undertaking to this Court that she would not raise any fresh construction nor would she use it for human habitation. Despite the earlier order and undertaking, she has not only raised the fresh construction but it is obvious that she has used it for human habitation. It seems to us that since Deoki Devi got off very lightl y in the earlier contempt proceedings, she feels that she can ta ke the law into her own hands. The reply filed by her virtually agg ravates the contempt. According to her, she had not raised any constructio n in violation to the orders of this Court. This statement is obviousl y false and even her learned counsel could not enlighten us as to how t he construction, evident from the photographs, which are not even denied, does not violate the orders of this Court. Not only that, with regard to the sign board outside the property informing the general publ ic that airconditioned and non-airconditioned rooms are available for rent, the explanation given is totally false. We may also point out that no material has been placed on record to support the averments made by De oki Devi. MAHANT LALITA SHARANJI v. DEOKI DEVI [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 6. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Deoki Devi has wilfully and knowingly disobeyed the interim order of this Court. Not only that, she has also violated her solemn undertaking given to this Court and the order passed by this Court in the earlier contempt proceedings. Therefore, she is guilty of civil contempt. 7. As far as quantum of punishment is concerned, we may point out that Deoki Devi, the contemnor has not even tendered an apol ogy. All that she had said in her reply is that ‘........if indeed her actions have resulted in violation of this Hon’ble Court’s orders in any manner, she is willing to tender an unconditional apology.....’ This is no apology in the eyes of law. There is no redeeming factor except the fac t that she is a lady aged 63 years. She has not submitted any apology – qualifie d or unqualified. She has raised construction on the land in dispute in total violation of the orders of this Court. 8. As far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, Deoki Devi has obviously no respect for law of the land and she has wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by the highest Court of the land. She obviously does not care for the rule of law. In such an eventuality, we are bound to impose punishment in such a manner that it upholds the majesty of law. We may point out that in Civil Appeal No. 394 of 2009, while allowing the appeal of Mahant Lalita Sharanji, we have passed the following order: “13. The respondent, Deoki Devi is directed to remove the entire construction at her own cost and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land to the appellant within 30 days from today failing which the appellant can take assistance of the Co urt to take possession of the land and building in which event, Deok i Devi will not be entitled to the cost of the structure or any ot her damages.” 9. We hold Deoki Devi guilty of civil contempt and sentence her to simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 only. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her s hall be suspended on the condition that she complies with the direction given in Civil Appeal No. 394 of 2009. Compliance with the orders passed in the Civil Appeal will absolve her from undergoing sentence of imprisonment. In case she fails to comply with the directions quoted hereinabove, then she will have to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed. 481 10. List the matter on 02.04.2018 to ensure compliance of the order. Nidhi Jain Matters further listed for compliance. MAHANT LALITA SHARANJI v. DEOKI DEVI [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]