SC Sentences 63-Yr-Old Woman To 3 Months In Jail For Contempt Arising Out Of 37-Yr-Old Land Dispute [Read Order]

Holding a 63-year-old woman guilty of contempt for repeatedly disobeying the orders of the court against raising construction over a disputed plot of land despite giving an undertaking and not even bothering to tender an apology, the Supreme Court has sentenced her to three-month imprisonment besides a fine of Rs 20,000.A bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta sentenced Deoki Devi to three months in jail following her contemptuous conduct in raising construction over a plot of land in Vrindavan under dispute despite its interim stay.The controversy arises out of consolidation proceedings and dispute dating way back to the year 1981.“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,” the bench noted.It, however, added that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her shall be suspended on the condition that she complies with the direction given in a related appeal wherein the bench directed Deoki Devi to remove all construction and handover peaceful possession of land to appellant Mahant Lalita Saharanji.“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…then she will have to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed,” said Justice Deepak Gupta speaking for the bench.The order of imprisonment comes on a contempt petition filed by Mahant Lalita Sharanji.It is to be noted that Mahant Lalita had filed a special leave petition in the year 2006 praying that Deoki Devi be restrained from raising any construction over the land in dispute situated on Vrindavan Chatikara Agra Main Road and from changing the nature of the land in dispute.The apex court had then directed that status quo be maintained. It had extended its interim order in 2009.Despite the interim orders, Deoki Devi raised construction whereafter the petitioner filed a complaint the Officer In-charge of Police Station Vrindavan on October 2, 2010, followed by a contempt petition in the Supreme Court.While issuing a notice to Deoki Devi, the court once again directed that no construction of any nature – temporary or permanent, shall be raised on the said plot of land.After initially contesting the contempt proceedings, Deoki Devi admitted that in the year 2010, heavy rains had lashed the area of Mathura-Vrindavan and because there was an imminent danger to the building, she had carried out some repair works.His counsel informed the court on January 31, 2011, that the offending construction stands demolished and the structure is now not habitable.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 leading to the apex court disposing of the contempt petition.In 2017, a second contempt petition came to be filed alleging that Deoki Devi had again raised construction on the very same land and was residing therein. The court was presented with photographs showing a new house on the plot of land. Outside the new house was a signboard advertising that air-conditioned and non-air conditioned rooms were available on rent.This time around, Deoki Devi told the court that she had barely carried out some maintenance work since the dilapidated condition of the property was attracting anti-social elements and vagabonds and some bus operators had started parking their buses therein.She also claimed that the advertisement for letting out rooms was in respect of some other property in the vicinity where she and her family is residing. The court was, however, not convinced with her submissions.“The photographs filed depict a totally different picture. What has been constructed is a fairly large house and when we compare 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 commercial and residential use,” said the bench.Holding her conduct to be contemptuous, the court said, “It seems to us that since Deoki Devi got off very lightly in the earlier contempt proceedings, she feels that she can take the law into her own hands. The reply filed by her virtually aggravates the contempt. According to her, she had not raised any construction in violation of the orders of this Court. This statement is obviously false and even her learned counsel could not enlighten us as to how the construction, evident from the...

SC Sentences 63-Yr-Old Woman To 3 Months In Jail For Contempt Arising Out Of 37-Yr-Old Land Dispute [Read Order]

akanksha jain

Tags