IMPORTANT POINT
The alleged wilful disobedience of a court order must be supported by evidence of actual violation and cannot be based on unfounded allegations.

JUDGMENT

1. The contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner to punish the respondents/contemnors for the wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 30.4.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contemnors.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while admitting the criminal revision petition, an interim order was passed by this Court directing the concerned respondents to stop the ongoing construction work over the land under C.S. Dag No.31 of 23-Kongkham Leikai Revenue Village and that the said interim order was communicated to the petitioner. Despite communication of the said order, the respondents/contemnors wilfully and deliberately violated the order.

4. The conditional order directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment in the land in question was passed on 28.9.2020 and challenging the same, the petitioner filed criminal revision petition only on 28.4.2021 after a lapse of 7 months. It is admitted by the petitioner that the removal and demolition of structures in C.S. Dag No.31 was taken place on 28.9.2020 itself.

5. The official respondents in the criminal revision petition contended that they have started constructing the water over head tank/water supply project immediately upon removal of obstructions/nuisances in the land in question. Further, it is the submission of the official respondents and before filing of the criminal revision petition itself, half of the work was completed and the remaining work stalled because of the interim order dated 30.4.2021. According to the contemnors, after passing of the interim order, there was no construction carried out, which fact was also admitted by the petitioner.

6. In view of the fact that after passing of the interim order, the respondents/contemnors have not carried out any construction work violating the interim order, the question of wilful disobedience does not arise. Hence, the wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 30.4.2021 alleged by the petitioner is unfounded. The petitioner themselves admitted that the interim order dated 30.4.2021 was communicated to the official respondents only on 21.6.2021. The photographs produced by the petitioner itself prove that on 30.4.2021 itself more than half of the construction was over.

7. Since the contemnors have not carried out any work disobeying the interim order and nothing on record to show that the contemnors have disobeyed the order of this Court, this Court is of the view that the respondents/contemnors have not violated the order of this Court dated 30.4.2021.

8. In view of the above, the contempt petition is closed and the contemnors are discharged from the contempt proceedings.