AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has come up with the institution of instant contempt petition arising out of an Order/Judgment dated 19th October, 2022 passed by the learned Writ Court in OWP No. 2207/2018, by virtue of which, the writ petition so filed by the petitioner was allowed in the following manner:-
“23.In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed as such. Respondents, by a Writ of Mandamus, are commanded to re-consider the case of petitioner for allotment of said strip of land, notwithstanding the consideration order dated 14.05.2022 as also the communication dated 16.05.2018 impugned in the writ petition, which are quashed by a Writ of Certiorari. It goes without saying that the respondents, during the course of re-consideration, shall not invoke the policy notified by the Jammu Development Authority vide notification No. 26-DA of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 and adopted by the J&K Housing Board vide order No. 19 of 2022 dated 11.03.2022 in terms whereof the consideration order supra had been issued.
24.The re-consideration shall be made and decision taken within a period of one month from the date copy of this judgment is served upon the respondents.”
The record reveals that many statement of facts/compliance reports have been filed on behalf of the respondents from time to time and latest on 29th May, 2026, on behalf of Managing Director, Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board, wherein, the respondents, while filing afresh status report, have also placed on record a detailed consideration Order No. 67 of 2026 dated 20th May, 2026, whereby the case/claim of the petitioner has been re-examined and after re-examination the same has been rejected in terms of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the detailed Judgment/Order mentioned supra. The respondents, while passing aforesaid order, have noted down the following points, which, for facility of reference, are reproduced as under:-
That the area claimed by the petitioner forms part of the designated green strip/green patch under the approved plan of the colony-which is a statutory document prepared to ensure planned, systematic, and sustainable development of the Colony, safeguarding essential components such as open spaces, ventilation & environmental balance, and public utility areas. Any encroachment, allotment, or change of land use in respect of such a green area would directly disturb and defeat the very object of the plan.
That if any allotment o f a plot/ green strip, or portion of land was made in the past in favour of any individual including 02 neighbours of the petitioner namely Peer Ghulam Rasool Shah and peer Ab. Hameed Shah in as observed by the Hon'ble court, in deviation of the rules, regulations, or the approved Plan of the colony, such an allotment cannot and does not create any legal precedent or vested right either in favour of the petitioner or any other person. The illegality or irregularity, if any, committed in the past does not confer a right upon another person to seek similar illegal or irregular treatment on the ground of parity.
That otherwise also, the allotment made in violation of the rules or the sanctioned/ approved Plan is void ab initio and cannot be treated as a binding precedent. Such an act, even if it has gone unchallenged, cannot operate as an estoppel against the statutory authorities from enforcing the law correctly in subsequent cases.
That if the plea of parity as raised by the petitioner is accepted, it would result in a cascading effect whereby multiple claims may be raised seeking allotment of green strips or reserved areas, ultimately leading to fragmentation and distortion of the basic layout of the colony. Such a course would irreparably damage the planned character of the area and frustrate the statutory mandate governing its development. As such, even if, any allotment was mistakenly or irregularly made in_favour of any person in the past, the same cannot be cited as a precedent nor can it form the basis for claiming parity. The respondents are duty bound to rectify deviations and ensure strict adherence to the Master plan and governing rules, rather than to replicate past irregularities.
That there exists no policy, ruIe, or regulation under which the land categorized as green strip/open space can be allotted to private individuals merely on the basis of parity. In absence of any enabling provision, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained.
That the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Learned Sub Judge (CJM), Anantnag, even if taken into consideration, does not advance the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the relief granted therein was expressly conditional and circumscribed by the stipulation that the rand use shall not be altered. The said decree, therefore, does not confer any right upon the petitioner to seek allotment of land categorized as a green area.
That the J&K Housing Board was not a party the aforesaid civil suit. Moreover, the subject matter of land use and allotment falls within the statutory domain of the Board and cannot be overridden by a decree passed in terse other parties, particularly when it conflicts with the approved Master plan.
That the communications exchanged between the Board and the Housing and Urban Development Department do not create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner. Such communications are administrative in nature and subject applicable rules and statutory provisions.
That permitting allotment of green strips would set a detrimental precedent reading to fragmentation of open spaces and breakdown of planned development. The authorities „are duty bound to maintain planning discipline and prevent arbitrary deviations that may compromise the integrity of the colony layout.
That even if at any stage the matter was processed or recommended, the same cannot operate as estoppels against the respondents from enforcing statutory provisions and adhering to the plan, as itis a settled principles that there can be no estoppel against raw.
That acceptance of the plea of parity would result in a cascading effect leading to encroachment upon green areas and distortion of the planned layout of the colony, thereby defeating the very object of planned development.
That the said landforms part of common areas held in trust for the benefit of the public at large, and its diversion for private use would violate the doctrine of public trust and larger public interest.
That, otherwise, also the land claimed by the petitioner measures 2518.37 Sq. Ft. (inclusive of 544 Sq. ft. of approach road), which by no reasonable standard can be construed or categorized as a mere “strip” of land. The expression “strip” in planning parlance ordinarily denotes a narrow, incidental piece of land appurtenant to an existing plot, incapable of independent use and generally meant for mariginal adjustments. However, the extent of land claimed by the petitioner is substantial in size and possesses an independent identity, thereby falling outside the scope and definition of a strip.”
The respondents, while noting down the aforesaid position and after giving due weightage to the record, applicable rules and the approved Plan of the Colony, have passed a fresh consideration order, whereby the claim of the petitioner for seeking allotment/regularization of the land measuring 2518.37 Sq. Ft. claimed by him was considered and, accordingly, the same was rejected.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the order of consideration passed by the respondents is no compliance and is in direct conflict with the observations made by the learned Writ Court while allowing the writ petition and, therefore, the action on the part of respondents is contemptuous and cannot sustain the test of law. He further submits that once the finding recorded by the learned Writ Court in its Order/Judgment has assumed finality, the respondents are left with no option, but to comply with the same and a detailed consideration order to that extent ought to have been passed by them that too strictly in tune with the observations made by the learned Writ Court, wherein the earlier consideration orders were quashed and the respondents were directed to accord fresh consideration and while according such re-consideration, the learned Writ Court had made it clear that the respondents shall not notify the policy notified by the Jammu Development Authority vide Notification No. 26-JDA of 2022 dated 08th March ,2022 and adopted by the Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board vide Order No. 19 of 2022 dated 11th March, 2022, in terms whereof the consideration order supra was issued earlier.
Learned senior counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in passing the detailed consideration order would tantamount to re-opening of an issue which has been already been clinched by the learned Writ Court by way of a Judgment/Order which has assumed finality, therefore, the compliance filed by the respondents along with detailed consideration is in fact no compliance rather the order of re-consideration which has been passed, is based upon the same grounds already rejected by the learned Single Judge in a detailed Judgment/Order mentioned supra, which is subject matter of the instant petition.
It has been submitted that once the contention of the respondents has been rejected by the learned Writ Court in a detailed Judgment/Order, then they, by no stretch of imagination, can refer to the same while rejecting the case of the petitioner by virtue of said consideration order.
To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Judgment/Order passed by the learned Writ Court has been complied with and a detailed consideration was passed, as the respondents were only directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of the said strip of land, notwithstanding the earlier consideration order dated 14th May,2022 as also the communication dated 116th May,2018 impugned in the instant petition, which, though were quashed by the learned Writ Court by way of Certiorari. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the order of re-consideration has been passed strictly in tune with the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court and since the order has been complied with in its letter and spirit, therefore, no contempt is made out. He, accordingly, submits that the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are required to be closed.
In addition, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that this Court, while exercising the contempt jurisdiction, cannot enlarge the scope of the learned Writ Court Order and, therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop, a prayer has been made that since the respondents were called upon to accord re-consideration to the case of the petitioner for allotment of land mentioned supra, which consideration has been accorded and for the reasons stated in the aforesaid consideration order, the case of the petitioner has been rejected and in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid consideration order, the remedy lies elsewhere, which remedy has not been availed by the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The controversy, in the present proceedings, essentially revolves around the question as to whether the respondents have complied with the mandate contained in the judgment/order dated 19.10.2022.
A plain reading of the operative portion of the said judgment makes it manifest that the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotment of the strip of land, notwithstanding the earlier consideration order dated 14.05.2022 and communication dated 16.05.2018, which were quashed, with a further direction that the policy notified by the Jammu Development Authority vide Notification No. 26-DA of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 and adopted by the J&K Housing Board vide Order No. 19 of 2022 dated 11.03.2022 shall not be invoked during such reconsideration.
The record, as noticed hereinabove, demonstrates that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondents have undertaken a fresh exercise of consideration and have passed Consideration Order No. 67 of 2026 dated 20.05.2026. The said order records reasons for declining the claim of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question forms part of the designated green strip/green patch under the approved plan of the colony and that there is no enabling provision permitting allotment of such land merely on the ground of parity.
It is settled preposition of law that in contempt jurisdiction, the Court must confine itself strictly to the express directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. It cannot enlarge the scope of the original order, reopen decided issues, or examine the correctness of subsequent actions in a manner that effectively exercises appellate or review jurisdiction. No supplemental direction can be issued in contempt proceedings beyond what was expressly directed in the original judgment.
In this regard, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran, reported as (2014) 3 SCC 373, are apposite. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
i.“The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above.”
Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the operative directions contained in the judgment dated 19.10.2022 stood complied with upon the respondents undertaking the exercise of reconsideration and passing a fresh order thereon. The judgment nowhere directed respondents to accept the claim of the petitioner or to allot the land in question in his favour; rather, the mandate was to reconsider the claim in accordance with law, while excluding reliance upon the specific policy which had been quashed.
The petitioner’s grievance, in substance, is against the reasons recorded and the conclusion reached by the respondents in the fresh consideration order. Such a challenge cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction, as it would require this Court to test the correctness, legality and sufficiency of the reasons recorded therein, thereby enlarging the scope of the original judgment. Such an exercise would, in substance, amount to reviewing the subsequent order, which is impermissible in contempt jurisdiction.
It is, therefore, held that the respondents have substantially complied with the judgment/order dated 19.10.2022 by undertaking the mandated reconsideration and passing a reasoned consideration order. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the legality, correctness or otherwise of the said order, it shall be open to him to avail such remedy as may be available to him in law. This Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction ,cannot adjudicate upon the merits of the subsequent consideration order or issue any direction supplemental to the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated.
For the foregoing reasons, no case of wilful disobedience of the judgment/order dated 19.10.2022 is made out. The contempt proceedings are, accordingly, closed.
Rule, if any framed, shall stand discharged.