In A Sunday Sitting, Patna High Court Initiates Contempt Case Against 5 Municipal Officers For Carrying Out 'Demolition' In Face Of Interim Order

In an unusual move, the Patna High Court held a hearing on a Sunday and instructed its registry to launch a contempt case against five officials of the Patna Municipal Corporation (PMC). The action comes in response to the deliberate defiance of the court's order, whereby the officials proceeded with the demolition of a building on Saturday, despite the order reserved in the case on Friday.A division bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy opined, “We are prima facie of the opinion that there is deliberate contempt made out from the facts noticed above and the demolition carried out on Saturday is without any further notice to the appellant and is in total violation of the interim orders. We also arrive at the finding after having questioned the Commissioner of the Patna MunicipalCorporation, whose deposition is annexed herewith. We further reckon the statement made by the respondent in the appeal that he had specific orders from ‘above’. Howsoeverhigh the order came from, it cannot be from one above the law.”The Court directed the registry to initiate a contempt case as against the following contemnors who are Respondent nos. 2 to 6 in the LPA namely, (1) Animesh Kumar Parashar, Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation; (2) Sheela Irani, Additional Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation; (3) Prabhat Ranjan, Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation; (4) Vijay Kumar, Executive Engineer, Patna Municipal Commissioner; and (5) Md. Shamsad, the Project Director, Patna Smart City, Patna.The bench passed the above direction while hearing the letters patent appeal filed by one Shailja Vajpei.The original writ petition was initiated on the grounds that the petitioner had maintained possession of a specific land tract through a sale deed dated 02.06.1987. This land, measuring 1989 sq.ft., was categorized as a Municipal Survey Plot.According to the petitioner, despite his continuous possession of the land with legitimate ownership, the respondent was undertaking actions to demolish a section of a commercial building situated on the same land. The writ petition was dismissed in a judgment rendered on 31-08-2022, leading to the current appeal.In the course of examination, the Court took note of the fact that the Secretary of the State, the predecessor to the State of Bihar, had granted a lease for a land area of 125190 sq.ft. to the Patna Administrative Committee. This lease was valid for 50 years, with an option to renew for another 50 years. Later the Patna Administrative Committee was replaced by the Patna Municipal Corporation which sub-leased the mentioned land to Sri Dharma Das Sarkar starting from 20.10.1951. The sub-lease was for a 30-year term, extendable only within the bounds of the State's original lease period.It was also uncovered that the conditions of the lease necessitated the construction of a building on the land within a year, as specified in the government's sanction letter. Subsequently, Sri Dharma Das Sarkar transferred the leasehold rights to Sri Jagar Nath Prasad on 27.12.1973. The Court further highlighted that Sri Jagar Nath Prasad acquired the subject land with approval from the Patna Municipal Corporation, subsequently transferring it to the current petitioner. Both parties underwent the process of land mutation, confirming their respective claims. The petitioner has maintained uninterrupted possession of the land, including the commercial building erected on it.The Division Bench acknowledged the appellant's three-decade-long occupation and that the partial demolition that was undertaken without proper proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. It expressed astonishment at the haste displayed by the respondent in pursuing the demolition. Consequently, the Division Bench deemed it appropriate to restrain the respondent from taking impulsive action vide an interim order and posted the matter for hearing on March 2.The Court said it cannot hold that the interim order was to be operational only till the next posting date, i.e. March 2. It said, "Even before posting the case to 02.03.2023, the Division Bench noticed the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation that he shall make an attempt to debunk the claim of title of the appellant and he was specifically directed to place necessary facts on record, by the next date. The interim order of stay was not till the necessary facts are placed on record but till there is a final decision taken by the Court as to the title of the property.”Court further said that it had reserved the matter for judgment after making it clear to both parties that it would either dismiss the application or direct proceedings to be initiated in accordance with law. However, after the matter was reserved, demolition was carried out by the Corporation.Thus, the Court opined that there was deliberate contempt as made out from the facts and the...

In A Sunday Sitting, Patna High Court Initiates Contempt Case Against 5 Municipal Officers For Carrying Out 'Demolition' In Face Of Interim Order

Bhavya Singh

Tags