The mere filing of an appeal without obtaining a stay order does not exempt the alleged contemnor from complying with the order of the lower court, and non-compliance in such circumstances may amount to contempt.

1. The Bench: This contempt application, being CPAN 1104 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to only as the contempt application) arises out of the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2015 passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WPLRT 142 of 2013. The applicants in the contempt application, who are the petitioners in WPLRT 142 of 2013, have alleged deliberate and wilful violation of the solemn dated 8th April, 2015 by the sole alleged State Contemnor.

2. Before this Court turns to the alleged contempt it will be useful to notice the directions passed in the order dated 8th April, 2015. After recording its reasons the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order of the Ld. West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Tribunal in OA Case No. 1441 of 2013 and also quashed the review proceeding being Case No. 1 of 2013. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), the sole alleged contemnor herein, was directed to mutate the names of the petitioners in the record of rights within one month from the date of communication of the order and accept land revenue from the petitioners in relation to the land in question.

3. WP LRT 142 of 2015 stood accordingly allowed.

4. The applicants allege that the alleged sole contemnor has been inactive in carrying out the mutation of the land in their favour inspite of the clear direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench (supra). The applicants further allege that such contumacious conduct on the part of the alleged sole contemnor still persists.

5. After filing of the contempt application it is on record that the State respondents in the WPLRT 142 of 2013 preferred a Special Leave Petition (for short SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By order dated 14th December, 2015 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to condone the delay in filing the SLP and grant leave. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also pleased to record that no interim order was either asked for by the petitioner nor is there any reason to grant such interim order.

6. Considering the fact that the applicants continued to press their contempt application before this Court, the State respondents filed an interim application (for short IA) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with their SLP. Such IA was taken up for consideration on 12th July, 2016 and, by order of the same date, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to record the submission of the respondents to the IA/present applicants to the effect that no construction shall be made or, third party rights created without the leave of the Court. The IA stood accordingly disposed of. The main matter was directed to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day for final disposal.

7. Sri S.K. Kapur, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants relies heavily on the judicial authorities reported in 1985 Cr LJ 1030 (at Paragraph 11) in the matter of Hans Raj Dhir vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.; 2015 (3) CHN (SC) 150 in the matter of Asit Kumar Das vs. J. Panda, the Chief Post Master General and 2004 (5) SCC 65 (at Paragraph 26) in the matter of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh to press home the point that mere pendency of an appeal before a higher forum without obtaining any order of stay will not entitle the alleged sole contemnor not to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 15th April, 2015. Sri Kapur asserts that it is the duty of the forum entertaining the appeal or revision to ensure first that the order is complied with.

8. Sri Kapur further points out that when compliance is refused on the ground that an appeal is preferred or intended to be preferred, the contempt would take a more aggravated form. Referring to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while granting leave to the SLP and, also in the connected IA, Ld. Senior Counsel argues that the State respondents did not pray for an interim order and, in any event no interim order was found to be necessary to be issued. Subsequently in the IA the Hon’ble Apex Court clea