IMPORTANT POINT
An injunction order loses its efficacy upon the transfer of a case to a tribunal with jurisdiction, rendering subsequent actions not contemptuous.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Vinay Vishen waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Manish Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. This petition is filed seeking direction to take action against the respondents under the provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act allegedly for deliberate breach of order dated 19.01.2016 passed below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2015 passed by 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Veraval.

3. By the aforesaid order, temporary injunction was granted against the defendants restraining them from not to undertaking any construction activities or to interfere or obstruct the usage of land bearing Chalta No. 26 and revenue survey No. 1853 and Chalta No. 358, revenue survey No. 1852 popularly identified as “Mangroli Shah Kabrastan.”

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Hakim for the petitioner submitted that revenue survey No. 1852, admeasuring 4 acres and 23 gunthas was allotted to the Trustees/Mutawallis Peer Salarshah Dargah through settlement deed and the said Trust has been managed by hereditary mode of succession. In the land bearing revenue survey No. 1852, there is some encroachment by certain individuals who have constructed makeshift hutments. The aforesaid two parcels of land, i.e. revenue survey No. 1852 and revenue survey No. 1853 are the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2015.

4.1 It is submitted that since land bearing revenue survey No. 1853 was recorded as Government land in the revenue records and since the Government initiated actions to remove Dargahs and graves from the said land the construct Government offices on the said lands, the petitioner along with other plaintiffs preferred suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2015 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Veraval.

4.2 It is submitted that along with the plaint/suit, the applicant filed application for drawing panchnama. Accordingly, the Court appointed Court Commissioner to draw the panchnama, which was prepared and placed on record.

4.3 It is submitted that the suit was filed as a representative suit, where public notice was published. No one appeared from public, but the defendant State filed reply contesting the suit, contending inter alia that the suit land is in fact a Government land as per the revenue records.

4.4 It is submitted that after considering the contentions of the State and also considering the panchnama, the Civil Court had granted stay. The respondent herein, being party to the suit, the direction was binding to the respondents.

4.5 It appears that the suit was proceeded with. Issues ere framed vide Exh.48. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed and evidence of the defendant was in progress. It is at this stage that the suit was transferred to Waqf Tribunal.

4.6 The suit was transferred and therefore, notices were also issued to the defendants including the Collector-respondent No. 2.

4.7 It is submitted that despite order dated 19.01.2016 injucting respondent No. 1-Collector, Gir Somnath from interfering in any manner in the possession of the suit lands, on 07.10.2023, respondent No. 1-Collector issued notices to the encroachers on the land survey No. 1853 for immediately removing the makeshift hutments.

4.8 It is submitted that on 08.10.2023, respondent No. 1-Collector along with police protection removed the encroachments from the land survey No. 1853 and not only removed the encroachments but also caused damage to graves. Further, on 09.10.2023, respondent No. 1-Collector constructed fencing within the land survey No. 1853 and also put up board declaring that the land survey No. 1853 is Government land.

4.9 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has thereafter taken this Court through the photographs at Annexure-B indicating the status of the land in dispute and the ongoing procedure and thereafter, display of board on the same land.

4.10 It is therefore submitted that such action is clearly in breach of the directions