Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1351
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.
Sh. K. Darchhawna Substituted by Sh. K. Malsawmtluanga and 2 Ors – Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Mehrishi, Secretary to the Govt. of India and 15 Ors – Respondent
Cont. Cas(C) 7 of 2016
Decided on : 07-10-2025
Important Points
Subject
Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Contempt Proceedings - Nature of contempt includes willful disobedience of clear orders of the court where evidence shows deliberate intent to defy the regulation laid down in the judgment. It is emphasized that contempt must illustrate contumacious conduct to uphold the judiciary's sanctity. (Para 15)
(C) Authority of the court - Administrative authorities' failure to comply with judicial orders undermines the authority of the court and leads to appropriate sanctions. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners are landowners whose lands were occupied by security forces for counter-insurgency operations since 1966 and were denied access and compensation as per previous court orders. Respondents failed to comply with directions for rental compensation assessment and payment, despite multiple requests and acknowledgment of prior verification.
Findings of Court:
Respondents exhibited deliberate disobedience to the court's orders; therefore, a fine and costs were imposed on the respondents for their contemptuous conduct.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was the willful non-compliance of court orders regarding compensation to landowners and the legitimacy of objections raised by respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contempt requires clear evidence of willful disobedience to its orders. Deliberate violations lead to consequences, with the authority of the judiciary needing to be upheld by penal actions against non-compliant parties.
Result: Contempt petition allowed; respondents fined and directed to comply with previous court orders.
For the Petitioner: Ms Dinary T Azyu
For the Respondent: Ms Zairemsangpuii
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land compensation and occupation (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. objections raised against rental compensation (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. counsel's arguments on willful disobedience (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's analysis of contempt and disobedience (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final ruling on contempt and penalties (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.
This is an application under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1997 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non- implementation/non-compliance of the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 72/2013 as well as the order dated 29.06.2015 passed in Interlocutory Application being IA No. 2/2015.
FACTS
2. The facts leading to the adjudication of the instant writ petition being WP(C) No. 72/2013 squealing in the Order dated 30.04.014 are as follows. The petitioners in the said writ petition were the land owners of their private lands in Kawmzawl area which falls under the Pukpui Village Council of Lunglei District, Mizoram. In the year 1966, the Security Forces occupied the said lands of the petitioners for counter insurgency operations. The said lands were initially occupied by the Indian Army and thereafter, by the Assam Rifles and as result, the petitioners were denied their access to the said land and also, their right to possess, enjoy and use their own lands. The lands are covered by the respective certificates and Periodic Patta i.e., in respect of petitioner No. 1, the date of Village Council Pass was issued on 15.08.1962 vide Periodic Patta No. 208603/10/10 of 2006, in respect of petitioner No. 2, the date of Village Council Pass was issued on 23.08.1962 vide Periodic Patta No. 208603/10/96 of 2006 and in respect of petitioner No. 3, the date of Village Council Pass was issued on 25.03.1962 vide Periodic Patta No. 208603/10/164 of 2009.
3. Thereafter, in the year 1986 the Govt. of India, Govt. of Mizoram and the Mizo National Front entered into a Memorandum of Settlement by which it was agreed that Rental compensation would be paid to the land owners in respect of the land occupied by the Security Forces. However, no Rental compensation were paid to the petitioners till the filing of the writ petition and aggrieved thereby, many persons similarly situated approached the High Court and the Court directed on many occasions to constitute a joint verification team in order to verify the claim of the petitioners and to thereafter pay Rental compensation to them. When the instant petition was taken up for hearing, the said orders passed by the High Court allowing Rental compensation to similarly situated land owners were placed by the counsels appearing for the parties concerned.
4. The learned counsel for the Central Government had also appeared during the writ proceedings and submitted that verification of the lands of the petitioners had already been done and assessment was also under process. The Central Government counsel also submitted that no further verification was required. In view of the same although the order of the learned Single Judge reflects that the Government counsel wanted some time but since the counsel was given opportunity a number of times to file counter affidavit but the same was not adhered to and more so on the submissions made by the counsel for the Central Government that verification was already done, no further time was allowed by this Court. In view of the submissions made by the counsels and in view of the settled facts, this Court vide order dated30.04.2014 had given the following directions:
(1) The respondents were directed to make a spot verification to ascertain as to whether the petitioners lands are in occupation of the Army/Para-military/Assam Rifles.
(2) The joint verification of the land of the petitioners was directed to be done by a Committee consisting of (a) the Director, Northeast-II, Ministry of Home Affairs or his representatives (b) the
