AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 1071
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of certain directions which inter alia reads as below: (a) direct the State of West Bengal and its Revenue Authorities not to initiate any proceedings for vesting of the land against the members of the Petitioner Sangha and if any vesting proceeding has been already initiated against the members of the Petitioner Sangha in that event not to pass any order and maintain status-quo in respect of the land in question in all respect till the disposal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1416 of 1997 pending before this Honble Court or in alternative clarify that the order dated 20.3.1998 as quoted in paragraph 19-20 will apply only to the parties thereto and not to the members of the Petitioner No.1 Sangha. The Interlocutory Application was heard on 29th October, 1999 and this Court was pleased to pass an order therein to the following effect: At the request of Learned counsel for the Applicants four weeks time is granted to enable him to put on record appropriate information regarding members of the Sangha for whom the application is moved and the nature of the stay required. In the meantime Learned Counsel for the Respondent will also take appropriat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibi Sangha was served with a notice dated 5.4.2000 under Section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act together with Section 14-T (3) of the said Act read with Rule 4 of the Rules framed thereunder by the Revenue Officer Cell, Malda asking to submit details of land held by him and his family members since 7.8.1969 and particulars of land transferred by him after that date. The records depict that a reply to the said notice was furnished as early as 30th April, 2000 alongwith the certification of membership of the Sangha and copy of the order dated 16th December, 1999 passed by this Court. It further appears that a hearing did take place and the Revenue Officer passed an order of vesting on 17th April, 2000. Subsequently, on the factual matrix, it appears that by the notice dated 26th April, 2000 issued by the Revenue Officer, possession of 37.47½ acres of land was directed to be made over to the Land Revenue Authority on 27.4.2000. It has been the definite case of the petitioners that in spite of receipt of both the orders dated 16th December, 1999 and 17th April, 2000, the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, English Bazar, Malda came on the site and took possession of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue effect of the order which has resulted in such an action which is said to be contemptuous in nature. The alleged Contemnors No.2 and 3 being Sayed Kadar Hossain and Chitaranjan Chakraborti stated that as officers of the Government, they have tried to discharge their duties to the best of their ability, capacity and understanding. There was never any motive or intention to violate or disobey the orders of this Court. In paragraphs 4 and 5 alleged contemnors stated as below. 4. We respectfully submit that as understood by us that the number of the Petitioner Sangha who were before the High Court in the Writ Petition were understood by us as parties on the date on which the Writ Petition was filed. The petitioners themselves have admitted that they became members only in 1992-93, and the order of this Honble Court would not be applicable then as they were not members of the Sangha on the date of filing the Writ Petition. If the interpretation given by the Petitioners was sought to be accepted, then there could be no occasion for this Honble Court making the order for verification of members of the Sangha. We never proceeded with the matter to violate the orders of this Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and sundry. Mr. Ray drew the attention of the Court to a portion of the order (as emphasized in page 3 hereof) and submitted that a contra interpretation to the order would not only be grossly irregular but be totally unsubstantiated. The user of the words who were before the High Court in the writ petition shall have to be attributed some meaning and the intention has been rather clear and categorical as to its applicability. Mr. Ray contended that this Court obviously could not indulge in surplusage or record a specific order without attributing any meaning thereto and it is in this context Mr. Ray further contended that in any event, if two explanations are available and out of which one stands adopted by the alleged contemnors which cannot by any stretch, be termed to be wholly unwarranted, question of returning a verdict of guilty in an Application for Contempt does not and cannot arise. Contra however, is the submission of Mr. Sanyal and Mr. Ganguli for the petitioners with reference to the user of the words present proceeding by this Court which cannot as contended but mean that the order has been intended to apply to the applicants before this Court, in addition to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act is quasi criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The observations of Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale (1969 3 All ER 1062) lend support to the aforesaid. Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale stated: "A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it,. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time- honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence. Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt." In this context, the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Archana Guha v. Ranjit Guha Neogi (1989 (II) CHN 252) in which one of us was a party (Banerjee....