ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This contempt petition alleges violation of two interim orders of the Court dated 7-9-2010 and 11-11-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.13426 of 2010.
2. The first of the said orders records the respondent's stand that an inquiry into The petitioner's title of the disputed property/land is in progress before the EDO(R) and that the respondents have no intention to demolish it until completion of that inquiry. Accordingly, the order dated 7-9-2010 by the Court restrains the respondent-Government of Punjab from demolishing the property of the writ petitioners till the next date of hearing. By the second order dated 11-11-2010 the Court opines that parawise comments filed by Commissioner Lahore Division are inconsistent and fail to acknowledge the duty of the Government to compensate the interest holders in land that is compulsorily acquired.
3. Contempt of Court is alleged to have been committed by and at the behest of the two respondent officers of the Provincial Government for demolishing on 10-3-2011 the petitioner's property in the disputed land. At the time of such demolition the two respondent officers are also claimed to have uttered derogatory words about the High Court.
4. The reply filed by the respondent officers vehemently denies the allegation made. Attention of the Court is drawn to the prayer made in the main writ petition. It is complained in the writ petition that two plots of land belonging to the petitioner measuring 3 marlas in Khasra No.9965/1 and 12- marlas in Khasra No.9965/2 mouza Niazbeg have been omitted from compulsory acquisition of land undertaken by the provincial government for its public project and that the same should also be acquired on payment of lawful compensation. Accordingly, the first order passed in the writ petition by the Court on 22-6-2010 expressly allows the respondent-Provincial Government to take over the petitioner's said remaining land measuring 3 marlas in Khasra No.9965/1 and 12 marlas in Khasra No.9965/2, Mouza Niazbeg but in accordance with and after taking necessary steps under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. In the context of the petitioner's grievance raised in the writ petition, the above noted order of the Court dated 11-11-2010 rejects the respondent's avoidance to acquire and pay compensation for the disputed land to the interest holders therein. It is noted from the reply by the respondents to this contempt petition that subsequent to said order the Provincial Government decided to acquire the petitioner's land. This is established by notification dated 3-3-2011 gazetted on 9-3-2011 under section 17(4) and section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 A completing the process of compulsory acquisition of the petitioner's disputed land. A payment order dated 10-3-2011 fixing compensation for the acquired pieces of the disputed land is also attached to the said reply.
6. It appears that the demolition work complained of in this contempt petition was undertaken after the procedure for acquisition of the disputed land prayed in the writ petition had been completed in the terms expressly contemplated in the Court's order of 22-6-2010. Therefore, rather surprisingly, the present contempt petition questions that action by the Provincial Government which is expressly prayed for in the writ petition and has been permitted by the Court. The contempt petition is possibly inspired by a new motive or a change of heart of the petitioner.
7. One Muhammad Aslam, the petitioner's general attorney had filed his affidavit in support of this petition.
However, today before the Court he has denied being witness to the factual attributions made in his affidavit against the two respondents. Resultantly, although having sworn the affidavit lie denies being a witness to the utterance of the statements by the respondents and therefore disclaims the derogatory content/substance of such statements as alleged in his affidavit. As if to justify falsity of his on affidavit, he has today orally claimed in Court that the allegations in this petition should find support in affidavits of four other persons who are neither named in the petition nor their affidavits have been filed therewith. Some affidavits were sent by learned counsel to the office later on 15-3- 2011 but without cover of any application.
8. It is plain from the above circumstances that the instant contempt petition was filed on 12-3-2011 by a person who falsely posed to be a witness to the commission of an alleged contempt of this Court. Today he has denied knowledge of the alleged statements spelled so graphically in his affidavit filed with the petition and announced vigorously by his learned counsel at the first hearing on 14-3-2011. The allegations in the contempt petition are made in the context of a dispute in which the petitioner's prayer for compulsory acquisition of the disputed land has been acceded by the Provincial Government. As such no grievance remains with the petitioner on the substantive dispute. Nevertheless, the present contempt petition itself containing scandalous content has been filed irresponsibly to serve some extranedus purpose or to settle some personal grouse of the petitioner with the respondent-officers. ' Unsubstantiated, vacuous and banal contempt petitions, like the present one, may also be filed with the object to scandalize the Court. The consequence of such an enterprise is dismissal of the petition and award of punishment to the irresponsible relator.
In the present case it may also be noted that the mendacious petitioner was able to hurl his malicious allegations before the Court because a lack of professional care and caution permitted a false version to be advanced on record in a manner that in fact brazenly abuses the process of the Court.
9. After the first hearing on 14-3-2011, the effort by the learned counsel to deposit in the office affidavits of four persons on 15-3-2011 who also pose to be witnesses to the alleged statements is merely an abortive rescue to salvage the situation. In the background of the merits of the main case; these affidavits lack credibility and are rejected as being a hopeless afterthought. The Court shall consider ordering appropriate legal action against the petitioner-deponent for which purpose separate proceedings shall be initiated.
10. Accordingly, in view of the facts that: (a) the demolition of petitioner's property was undertaken by the respondents after the compulsory acquisition thereof: (b) such acquisition is a step that is expressly prayed for in the main writ petition: (c) the acquisition process was expressly permitted by the Court on 22-6-2010 to be undertake by the respondents and (d) the signatory of and deponent in this petition has denied any knowledge of the facts alleged in the petition; it is clear that this contempt petition is baseless and an abuse of process of Court. It is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000..