Judgment:
R.C. Lahoti, J.
(1) The petitioner seeks proceedings under Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1958 and Order 39 Rule 2-A Civil Procedure Code being initiated against the respondents who are officers respectively of Dda and police.
(2) It will be useful to notice the background which has given rise to the initiation of these proceedings since the facts are bit little peculiar.
(3) The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. The relief prayed for in the suit was of the defendants Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority being restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from demolishing the suit property which was a portion of Khasra No.1 2383/1849/69 and 3760/ 2382/ 1849/69/1 Mauza Karkarduma, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi admeasuring 800 sq. yards. It appears that the suit was not contested by the defendants. They simply made a statement before the court that the plaintiff would not be evicted from the land in dispute except due process of law. By order dated 1.6.1984, the learned Sub-Judge directed the suit to be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the statement of the counsel of the plaintiff made in the light of the statement made on behalf of the defendants.
(4) Once again, the plaintiff filed a civil suit no. 4066/1991 in this court impleading Dda only as the defendant and seeking a decree of permanent injunction merely restraining the defendant Dda from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession, user and enjoyment of the suit land bearing Municipal No. 512/17/A/l,Vishwas Nagar; Delhi and also restraining the defendant from demolishing the structure of the plaintiff standing thereon.
(5) A perusal of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff was relying on certain policy .decision of the Government of India dated 16.12.1977 laying down guidelines for the regularisation of unauthorised colonies and unauthorised constructions.
(6) The suit before this court was also not tried on merits. This court has in its judgment dated 27.10.1993 noted that 'the plaintiff asserts that the land in question is located in an unauthorised colony. It is a recognised colony and not an approved colony.' Having noticed the stand taken by the defendant Dda before the Sub Judge in the earlier suit and placing reliance on that statement alone, this court passed an ex parte decree restraining the Dda from demolishing the house of the plaintiff on the aforesaid plot, (now measuring 600 Sq. yards ) except in accordance with law.
(7) It is not worthy that the court has adjudged neither the title of petitioner nor the legality of possession or construction raised by him. The decree has left ample scope for the defendant-DDA to proceed with demolition of the petitioner's premises, provided that the authority did so in accordance with law. There is no decree or order of the court restraining the defendant Dda in absolute terms from demolishing the plaintiff's construction or from dispossessing him from the land in his possession without regard to the nature and character of his possession and/or construction.
(8) Vide order dated 4.7.1994 this court directed notice to be issued to the respondents to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them. The respondents have appeared and shown cause.
(9) The stand of the respondents briefly stated is that the plaintiff is in possession of Khasra nos. 76 and 77 of Karkarduma, Delhi and not of Khasra no. 69 for which the decree has been passed. Khasra nos. 76 and 77 of village Karkarduma, Shahdara, Delhi have been acquired vide award no. 2210 and placed at the disposal of Dda for its management and control vide notification dated 30.3.1972. Vacant and physical possession of the land was also handed over to the Dda on 24.4.1969. Copies of notification and possession report have been filed. Demarcation of the land has also been carried out on 10.12.1991 by a Naib.Tehsildar. The demarcation report also confirms the stand of the respondents.
(10) It was vehemently- argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are not justified in taking the stand that the possession/ construction of the plaintiff/petitioner is on khasra no. 76 and 77 and not on khasra no. 69 because they had not take such a stand in the earlier two suits. The respondents cannot, in the face of the decree, be permitted to remove the possession and construction of the ' plaintiff/ petitioner, even if it be on khasra no. 76 and 77.
(11) In the opinion of this court, no case is made out for proceedings against the respondents. The suit before the Sub-Judge was dismissed as withdrawn, though on a statement made on behalf of the defendant that they would take action only in accordance with law. This court also did not adjudicate any issue on merits. Simply, by taking into consideration the statement made before the Sub-Judge this court proceeded to grant a decree in favor of the petitioner, but taking care to qualify the injunction by the words- 'except in accordance with law.' It is clear that if plaintiff be in possession of Government land and officials of the Dda or of the Administration i.e. the law enforcing agencies proceed to remove the encroachment or unauthorised construction in exercise of the statutory power conferred upon them, after fulfillling the procedural requirements, it cannot be said that they are acting in violation or breach of decree of injunction passed against them.
(12) For the foregoing reasons this court is of the opinion that no case is made out for proceeding against the respondents. In any case, it is not considered to be a fit case where in the interest of justice this court should initiate proceedings in contempt against the respondents.
(13) The proceedings are directed to be dropped. However, by way of abundant caution, it is made clear that the respondents shall before taking any action against the petitioner in the matter of his possession or construction would do well to acquaint themselves with the decree passed by this court and take care to see that they act strictly in accordance with and within the four corners of law governing them.