Failure to prove willful disobedience of court orders results in dismissal of contempt application.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in Second Appeal No.289/2005 vide order dated 25.07.2022 stay order has been passed, but despite the stay order respondents have started cultivating the suit land. They are also changing the nature of the suit land by constructing a marriage garden in the name as "Nagar Marriage Garden". They have also started giving the suit land on rent for different purposes. Respondents are changing the nature of the suit property contrary to the directions issued by this Court and are willfully disobeying the directions issued by this Court. Hence, respondents be punished for not obeying / complying the directions issued by this Court and they be directed to remove the entire constructions raised by them over the suit land and to restore the suit land on its actual condition.

3. Counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting in their reply that they have only fenced the suit land by barbed wire, which cannot be said to be have changed the nature of suit land.

The land in question is a vacant land and no permanent construction has been raised upon it. Respondents are recorded Bhumiswami of the land in question and they are in possession of the suit land since long and they have right to enjoy the suit land. Respondents never tried to violate the directions issued by this Court. Hence, he prays that application deserves to be dismissed.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of the allegation and as also taking in to the various photographs filed by both the parties, it reveals that although land in question is fenced by the barbed wire, but in some of the photographs, some tents and carpets are shown, but the same cannot be considered as a permanent construction. The suit land is still vacant. Applicants did not file any relevant document that respondents have changed the nature of suit land by cultivating, which is misconceived, as cultivating a land is noway changes the nature of suit land, which is lying vacant. Respondents did not raise any permanent construction over the suit land and they did not change the nature of suit land.

5. In view of the aforesaid, applicants has failed to prove that respondents have willfully committed disobedience of the directions issued by this Court, therefore, no case is made out for issuing order of punishing the respondents. Hence, applicant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A Read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act is hereby dismissed.