Authorities must implement court orders and cannot sit tight over them. Disobedience to court orders can lead to contempt of court.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. Sri Arbind Kumar Singh, Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua is personally present in court in view of earlier orders passed by this court.

2. Heard Sri T.N. Maitin, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Radha Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhat Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General No. 5, who has appeared on behalf of the contemnor.

3. It is a glaring example of disobedience shown to the order passed by the writ court long back in the year 2009. The petitioner, who was a serving military personnel had approached this court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 10516 of 2007 with a prayer to quash an order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the Collector at Kaimur at Bhabhua. By the said order proposal for settlement of 1.63 Acres land of mauza Kanhua of Khata No. 151, Plot No. 209 in favour of the petitioner was rejected. In the said writ petition the respondents had appeared and filed their response and thereafter this court by its order dated 21.4.2009 allowed the writ petition. It would be appropriate to quote order dated 21.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10516 of 2007, which is quoted herein below:-

"Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-state and reply of the same has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua whereby proposal for settlement of 1.63 acres of land of Mauja Kanhua of Khata No. 151, Plot No. 209 in favour of the petitioner who is a serving military personnel, has been rejected.

This is the second time when the petitioner has come before this court for same relief. Earlier the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 4204 of 2004 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass final order of settlement in favour of the petitioner within three months as recommendation for settlement of this land in favour of the petitioner had been made in Settlement Case No. 12 of 2003-04 by the Circle Officer on 20.06.2003. Despite recommendation in favour of the petitioner, following all procedures, the final settlement order was not being passed. This was the reason that the petitioner approached this court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4204 of 2004. In spite of direction of the High Court in the writ application, the matter remained pending, as such, the petitioner filed MJC No. 829/06. In the MJC, finally show cause was filed on behalf of the contemnor - authorities disclosing the fact that by order dated 12.06.2006, the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land has been rejected. The contempt proceeding was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order.

Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed maliciously by the respondents-authorities for the reason that the petitioner approached High Court by filing writ application and also filed a Contempt case on account of non-compliance of the direction of this court. Since the petitioner approached the High Court, the respondents became adamant not to settle the land in favour of the petitioner and made all efforts in this regard. The then Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania specifically directed to the Circle Officer for sending such report that settlement cannot be made in favour of the petitioner. In support of this contention, the petitioner has annexed entire order sheet of Settlement Case. From the order sheet, it transpires that Settlement Case was initiated in the year, 2003. By order dated 20.6.2003, favourable recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Circle Officer, Mohania. In the recommendation, it is stated that there is no legal ground for rejecting the application. Petitioner's prayer for settlement of land is in consonance with the Govt. provisions and there is no objection from any quarter. The na