MRITYUNJOY DAS AND ANR. versus SAYED HASIBUR REHAMAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 16-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MRITYUNJOY DAS AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SAYED HASIBUR REHAMAN AND ORS. 
MARCH 16, 2001 
[U.C. BANERJEE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
f 
Contempt of Coul1s Act, 1971 : Section 2(b). 
Contempt Petition-SLP filed before Supreme Coul1 by members of 
Sangha against the judgment of High Coul1 pe11aining to constitutionality of c 
cel1ain provisions of West Bengal Land Amendments Act of 1981and1986-
InterlocutoJy application.filed seeki.ng maintenance o.f status quo in respect of 
the land in question till the disposal of the SLP-Supreme Coul1 ordered status 
quo regarding possession of land in connection with the 1nembers of Sangha 
who wen? before the High Cou11 in the writ petition out of which present 
p1vceedings a1vse-Subsequently, Supreme Cou11 dh-ected that any vesting 
D 
order passed in respect of lands ~f the members of Sangha who were before the 
High Coul1 should not be implemented unti/fu11her Olde rs-Revenue Officer 
ordered handing over of possession o.f land in respect of those petitioners 1vho 
we1~ not members of Sangha on the date of filing of writ petition be.fore High 
Cou11-Held: Exercise of powers under the Contempt o.f Coul1s Act has to be 
E 
'( 
rather cautious and used sparingly-There is a doubt lvhether Supreme Court's 
order covered only those pe.titioners \Vlzo ivere members of the Sangha on the 
date of filing of writ petition be.fore High Coul1 or it covered all the members 
p1~senting the petition before Supreme Cou11-Hence, benefit of doubt given to 
alleged conte1nnors-Contempt petition dismissed. 
F 
A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before this Court by mem-
hers of a Sangha against the judgment of the High Court pertaining to 
constitutionality of certain provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms 
Amendment Act of 1981 and 1986. An interlocutory application was filed 
before this Court seeking maintenance of status quo in respect of the land 
G 
in question till the disposal of the SLP. This Court ordered status quo 
regarding possession of land in connection with the members of the Sangha 
who were before High Court in the writ petition out of which the present 
-
proceedings arose. Subsequently, this Court directed that any vesting 
"\ 
order passed in respect of lands of the members of the Sangha who were 
before the High Court should not be implemented until further orders. 
H 
471 
A 
B 
c 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) 2 S.C.R. 
The Revenue Officer passed an order directing handing over of 
possession of land in respect of those petitioners who were not members of 
the Sangha on the date of filing of the writ petition before the High Court. 
Hence this Contempt Petition. 
On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that the order of this 
Court covered all mem hers of the Sangha presenting the petition before 
this Court. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the order of this 
Court covered only the me:nbers of the Sangha who were before the High 
Court. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. Exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 
1971 shall have to be rather cautious and use of it rather sparingly after 
D 
addressing itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct. The Court 
must otherwise come to a conclusion that the conduct complained of 
tantamounts to obstruction of justice, which if allowed, would even perme-
ate in our society. [479-B-C] 
E 
F 
G 
Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. NewaJia, [2000) 2 SCC 367, relied on. 
2. The common English phrase "he who asserts must prove" has its 
due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constitut-
ing the act of contempt. As regards the 'standard of proof', a proceeding 
under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provi-
sions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the 'stand-
ard of proof' required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall 
have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. [479-F-H; 480-A] 
The Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonaga Mazdoor Union, [1970) 
III SCC 98; VG. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, [1992] 4 SCC 697 and In Re : 
Bramble vale, (1969) 3 All ER 1062, referred to. 
Archana Guha v. Ranjit Guha Neogi, (1989) II CHN 252 (Cal.), ap-
proved. 
3. Admittedly, this Court directed maintenance of status quo with the 
H 
following words - "the members of the petitioners Sangha who were before 
-
._ l 
, 
MRITYUNJOY DAS v. SYED HASIBUR REHAMAN [BANERJEE, J.] 473 
the High Court in the writ petit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.