Buying disputed land despite stay order? Madhya Pradesh High Court jails buyer, raps advocate for violating injunction

“Sentencing policy is for deterrence and not for saving the unscrupulous persons who have no respect for the Court, specifically when one of them is a practising advocate, and his cousin brother…is practising in the High Court, Gwalior bench,” the high court said in its March 11 order.

‘Disputed land sold while matter in pendency’

• It is alleged that one of the parties, a practising advocate, along with other co-sharers of the disputed agricultural land in Bhind district, was a party to a second appeal filed in 2023.
• His cousin brother is appearing in the present contempt matter and is also a co-sharer of the disputed land and a party in the second appeal.
• On the filing of this second appeal, an interim order to maintain the status quo was passed regarding the said property.
• However, it was alleged that despite the interim order, two of the co-sharers of the disputed land, including the practising advocate, executed a sale deed on December 6, 2023, in favour of a woman named Neetu.
• The woman, who is a resident of the same village, purchased the land from the accused persons.

Justice G S Ahluwalia observed that the sentencing policy must serve as a deterrent against those who deliberately disrespect judicial orders.

Court finds deliberate violation

• The high court found that the accused advocate who is a co-sharer of the disputed property, is a practising lawyer and was aware of the niceties and complexities of law.
• He was also well aware of the fact that the property being sold was the subject matter of a pending case.
• However, he consciously and deliberately alienated and sold the disputed land through sale deeds in favour of a woman and also handed over possession of the same.
• He, along with the other accused had deliberately and consciously managed to return the notices of this case by obtaining a false endorsement from the postman concerned.
• This conduct clearly shows his hostile and disrespectful attitude towards the court.
• It was placed on record that the cousin brother, who is also appearing for two of the accused, is also a co-sharer in the disputed property and is a co-appellant in the second appeal.
• The accused have consciously sold the said property to a woman despite a temporary injunction order which was passed at their own instance along with other co-sharers.
• It was claimed by the woman’s counsel that the whole village was aware of the pendency of the appeal and the injunction order concerning the land in question.
• The woman is also a resident of the same village.
• If all the residents of the village were aware of the pendency of the appeal as well as the existence of a stay injunction, then it is clear that she, too, was aware of the same and still purchased the disputed property.

Sentences imposed

• A liberal view was adopted against the accused, who is a practising advocate and is suffering from a heart ailment and renal diseases.
• He is regularly undergoing medical treatment, and the property in dispute was allegedly sold to meet his medical expenses.
• He is directed to return the sale amount to the woman who allegedly purchased the property in dispute by a cheque from his personal bank account within a period of one week.
• The woman, Neetu, who purchased the disputed property, is sentenced to jail for one and a half months.
• The witnesses of the alleged sale deed are sentenced to civil imprisonment for a period of three months.
• Another accused, Shivratan Singh, was also sentenced to three months’ civil imprisonment.
• The woman and the witnesses are also directed to surrender before the trial court on or before March 18.
• The collector concerned is directed to ensure that the woman’s name is deleted from revenue records and to restore the status quo within a period of one month.

Buyer claims lack of knowledge

• Appearing for the woman who allegedly purchased the disputed land, advocate G P Chaurasia argued that she is a bona fide purchaser and was not informed by the accused that a second appeal is pending or that there is any temporary injunction order.
• It was further claimed by Chaurasia that a false declaration was given by one of the accused that there is no stay on the land in dispute, and it is free from encumbrances.
• It was further submitted that whoever is the resident of the village concerned was aware of the pendency of the appeal as well as the temporary injunction order, and everybody knew that the woman was going to purchase the property.