Continuing contempt and revenue record compliance upheld where cultivatory possession was deliberately omitted.

A contempt petition was held not barred by limitation because the alleged non-compliance was treated as a continuing failure in the maintenance of revenue records, and the court held that its constitutional contempt power could not be defeated on the technical objection raised. The court further found wilful disobedience of an earlier judgment requiring actual cultivatory possession to be recorded under the Delhi Land Revenue framework, and held that reliance on the struck-down exclusionary amendment was misplaced. The respondents were found guilty of contempt for deliberate and contumacious non-recording of possession, with sentencing deferred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contempt petition was barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (ii) Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the earlier Division Bench judgment as affirmed by the Supreme Court by failing to record the petitioners' cultivatory possession in the revenue records.

Issue (i): Whether the contempt petition was barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Analysis: The petition was filed after the Supreme Court had disposed of the connected appeal, and the alleged non-compliance was treated as a continuing failure year by year in the maintenance of the revenue record. The Court also held that the constitutional contempt power under Article 215 could not be curtailed by a technical limitation objection in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected; the petition was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the earlier Division Bench judgment as affirmed by the Supreme Court by failing to record the petitioners' cultivatory possession in the revenue records.

Analysis: The earlier judgment required the record of rights to be maintained in accordance with the Delhi Land Revenue framework and did not permit the authorities to ignore actual cultivatory possession on the footing that the land was Gaon Sabha land or banjar. The Court found that Rule 63 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 required recording of actual cultivatory possession, that the respondents' reliance on the struck-down exclusionary amendment was misplaced, and that the available revenue records and surrounding circumstances showed deliberate non-recording of possession. The Court further held that contempt jurisdiction was appropriate because the order was explicit and the disobedience was contumacious.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the judgment.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition succeeded on merits, and the respondents were found guilty of contempt, with sentencing deferred to a later date.

Ratio Decidendi: In contempt proceedings, a court may act where the underlying direction is clear and the non-compliance is wilful and continuing, and a technical limitation objection cannot defeat the exercise of constitutional contempt powers in such a case.

---