ER. K. ARUMUGAM versus V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. on 6 February 2019

802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.[2019] 2 S.C.R. 802

A

ER. K. ARUMUGAM

v.

V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.

Civil Appeal No. 1510 of 2019

BFEBRUARY 06, 2019

[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Contempt of Court:

Writ petition in respect of compensation amount for the landCacquired by Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWADBoard) – High Court directed the Board to submit report to the DistrictCollector to ensure fair and reasonable compensation to the writpetitioner – In compliance of order of High Court, District Collectorpassed order fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 200/– per sq. ft.as on 1.4.2012 – When the compensation amount was paid to theDclaimant, he received the same under protest – The claimant filedcontempt petition against the appellant alleging disobedience oforder of High Court – High Court issued some oral instructions,whereupon, District Collector enhanced the value of the land @Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. – High Court thereafter fixed the vaue of theEland @ Rs. 600/- per sq. ft. – Contempt appeal dismissed by DivisionBench of High Court – On appeal, held: A party can be proceededfor disobedience of court order only when there is wilfuldisobedience and non-compliance of Court order – In the presentcase, there was no disobedience or non-compliance of the Courtorder to entertain contempt petition – High Court fell in error inFentertaining the contempt petition and also in issuing positivedirection to the authorities to pay further compensation which isarbitrary and unsustainable – The enhancement of land value @Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. by District Collector, since passed under fear ofcontempt, the same is liable to be quashed.GAllowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A party can be proceeded for disobedience ofthe order of the court only when there is willful disobedience andnon-compliance of the order passed by the court. On perusal ofthe order passed in Writ Petition it is seen that in the said order, H

court has only directed the authorities to ensure that fair andreasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first respondentand is paid at the earliest. The officers quickly acted in order tocomply with the direction of the High Court. When the directionwas only to consider the case of the first respondent for ensuringfair and reasonable compensation and having regard to the swiftaction taken by the appellant and other officials, there was nodisobedience of the order of the court, much less wilfuldisobedience to invoke contempt jurisdiction. In the contemptjurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners ofthe order alleged to have been disobeyed. [Paras 12 and 17][808-F-G; 810-H]

2. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the DistrictCollector passed the order fixing the land value at the rate ofRs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 (though the land came to bein occupation of the Board way back in 1991). The first respondenthas not challenged the said compensation fixed at the rate ofRs.200/- sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 in the manner known to law. Incompliance of the order of the High Court, when the amount hasbeen paid to the first respondent, there was no disobedience ornon-compliance of the order of the court to entertain the contemptpetition. [Para 13][809-B-C]

3. Without appreciating that the order of the High Courthas been duly complied with, the Single Judge erred inentertaining the contempt petition. Apart from entertaining thecontempt petition, the Single Judge further fell in error in issuingpositive direction to the authorities to pay further compensationat the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which is arbitrary andunsustainable. It is public money and having implications on thepublic exchequer, the public money cannot be allowed to be takenaway by an individual by filing contempt petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities. The order passed by the Single Judgeaffirmed by the Division Bench is ex-facie erroneous and liableto be set aside. [Paras 14 and 17][809-F-G; 812-B]

4. The proceeding of the District Collector dated30.11.2016 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft.as on 30.11.2016 was passed under the fear of contempt of court,which is liable to be quashed. In any event, when the entry into A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe land was way back in 1990-91, the first respondent cannotclaim that compensation be paid to him on the value of the landfixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016. [Para 15][810-D]

Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retired) (2008) 14SCC 392 : [2008] 7 SCR 278; Sudhir Vasudeva,BChairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural GasCorporation Limited and others v. M. GeorgeRavishekaran and others (2014) 3 SCC 373 : [2014] 4SCR 27 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

C[2008] 7 SCR 278relied onPara 14[2014] 4 SCR 27 relied onPara 17

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1510of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2017 of the High CourtDof Judicature at Madras in Contempt Appeal No. 2 of 2017.

K. Ramamoorthy, Sr. Adv., C. Paramasivam, Pushkin Rajkumar,Vinodh Kanna B., Advs. for the Appellant.

S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., B. Balaji, S. Arun Prakash, R. Naveenraj,Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, K. V. Vijayakumar, Advs. for the Respondents.E

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.08.2017 passedby the High Court of Madras in Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2017 affirmingthe order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2017 in and byFwhich the appellant-TWAD Board was directed to pay Rs.600/- per sq.ft. to the first respondent for the land which the appellant-Board enteredpossession in 1991 with the consent of the first respondent.

3. During the year 1991-1992, land to an extent of 86.5 cents inSurvey No.271/2A 5E – “Dry Land” in Walajabad Village was enteredGupon by the appellant-Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board(TWAD Board) with the consent of the first respondent-land owner for the construction of Head works and Staff quarters. In the year 1993, theappellant-Board constructed the Head works for supply of drinking waterand residential Staff quarters. Accepting the recommendation of theRevenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram made in the year 1991, byH

an order dated 30.03.2015, the District Collector, Kancheepuram fixedthe value of the land at the rate of Rs.260/- per cent and the total valueof the land was arrived at Rs.22,490/-. Giving incentive of 12% for everyyear up to 2012, the value of the land was fixed at Rs.2,43,001/-. Ademand draft of Rs.2,43,001/- had been sent to the first respondent bythe appellant-Board vide its letter dated 14.05.2015 which the firstrespondent refused to receive and the same was returned.

4. On 31.01.2016, the first respondent filed Writ Petition No.3874of 2016 and on the third day of filing of the petition i.e. on 03.02.2016,the High Court disposed of the said writ petition with direction to theappellant-Board to submit a report to the District Collector and to ensurethat a fair and reasonable compensation be sanctioned to the firstrespondent at an early date not later than two months. The said orderreads as under:-

“6. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the 3[rd]respondent to submit his report/response to the 4[th] respondent asrequested in the letter of the 4[th] respondent dated 23.09.2015,within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. On receipt of such shall place appropriate proposalfor the consideration of the 2[nd] respondent within a period of threeweeks thereafter. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent shall considerthe matter and ensure that fair and reasonable compensation issanctioned to the petitioner and paid at the earliest, not later thantwo months from the date on which the proposal is submitted bythe 4[th] respondent. The authorities are well advised to adhere tothe time schedule fixed by this Court, failing which, it would amountto disobedience of the order, warranting action under the Contemptof Courts Act.”

5. In compliance of the above direction, the Managing Director ofthe appellant-Board had sent a letter dated 03.03.2016 to the DistrictCollector, Kancheepuram stating that the District Collector,Kancheepuram is the authority to fix the land value and requested himto fix a fair and reasonable value of the land as ordered by the HighCourt. A State Level Committee meeting attended by High level Officershad been convened on 25.04.2016. As seen from the Minutes of theMeeting, the entire matter has been thoroughly discussed and considered.It was decided in the said meeting that the case neither comes under theambit of the Land Acquisition Act nor under ‘Private Negotiation’ andonly the District Collector is fully competent to fix the value of the land A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain such cases. Accordingly, it was decided to remit the matter to theDistrict Collector to determine the value of the land and communicatethe same to the Managing Director, TWAD Board so that a fair andreasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first respondent and toensure compliance of the order of the High Court.

B6. The District Collector accordingly held a detailed enquiry andexamined various aspects of the matter and also took into considerationthe prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012. After elaborateconsideration, the District Collector vide proceeding dated 23.05.2016fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. which was theguideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the said order reads as under:-C“7. During the Private Negotiation meeting conducted on09.04.2012, it was decided to for value as per the prevailingguideline value as on 01.04.2012. The Sub-Registrar, Walajabadrecommended and reported that the guideline value was at therate Rs.200/- per sq. ft. for the land in S.No.271/2A5E in hisDletter no.114/2012, dt. 16.04.2012. Accordingly, the DistrictCollector, Kancheepuram in his proceedings dt. 19.05.2012 hasfixed the land value at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. which was the guidelinevalue as on 01.04.2012 and the total value of the land was arrivedat Rs.75,42,800/-.”

The District Collector also observed that the land value atERs.200/- per sq. ft. is fixed and the same may be paid with interest at therate of 12% per annum from 19.05.2012 till date of payment. The DistrictCollector opined that land value fixed at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on01.04.2012 is a fair and reasonable value considering the classificationof the land at the time when Board entered upon the land. Based on theFland value fixed by the District Collector, calculating the amount at therate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. along with interest, TWAD Board calculatedthe total amount of compensation at Rs.1,11,80,723/- as under:- Land area….86 ½ cent (or)37714 Sq. ft.GCost of land at the rate ofRs.200/- per sq. ft.….Rs.75,42,800/-Interest @ the rate of12% per annum from 19.05.2012 to 25.05.2016 - 4 years and 7 days….Rs.36,37,923/-HTotal….Rs.1,11,80,723/- The first respondent received the said amount of Rs.1,11,80,723/-with protest on 31.05.2016 and issued a receipt for the said amount.

7. The first respondent did not challenge the rate fixed by theDistrict Collector at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. in a manner known to law. Onthe other hand, the first respondent filed Contempt Petition No.2626 of2016 in W.P. No.3874 of 2016 on 28.09.2016 alleging disobedience ofthe order passed by the High Court on 03.02.2016. The learned seniorcounsel appearing for the appellant-Board submitted that when thecontempt petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 25.11.2016,though no orders were passed, some instructions appeared to have beengiven to the TWAD Board. It was submitted that apprehending that shemight be hauled up for contempt of court, the District Collector videorder dated 30.11.2016 fixed the value of the land at the rate ofRs.500/- per sq. ft. When the contempt petition came up for hearing on13.02.2017, going beyond the order passed in Writ Petition No.3874/2016, the learned Single Judge fixed the value of the land at Rs.600/- persq. ft and directed the balance amount be paid to the first respondent atthe rate of Rs.400/- per sq. ft. The order passed by the High Courtreads as under:- “6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Courtis inclined to fix a reasonable amount of compensation andaccordingly, the same is fixed at Rs.600/- per sq. ft. has been paidon 25.05.2016 together with interest, the balance amount payableper square feet is Rs.400/-. However, the interest for the differentialamount shall be calculated only at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. ft.from 19.05.2012 till 25.05.2016. The above direction shall becomplied with by the respondents within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of theamount, the erstwhile owner shall execute a sale deed in favourof the TWAD Board and the expenses be borne by the TWADBoad……..”

8. Being aggrieved by the above order passed in the contemptproceedings, the appellant-Board preferred appeal before the DivisionBench. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

9. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant-Board and learned senior counsel for the first respondent andperused the impugned order and materials on record.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A10. The question falling for consideration in this appeal is, inexercise of contempt jurisdiction, whether the learned Single Judge wasright in travelling beyond the four corners of the order in W.P. No.3874of 2016 dated 03.02.2016 and directing the appellant-Board to pay thecompensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft.B11. In Writ Petition No.3874/2016, the High Court passed the orderdated 03.02.2016 with direction to the authorities to ensure a fair andreasonable compensation be sanctioned to the first respondent and paidat the earliest. Immediately after the order of the High Court, theManaging Director, TWAD Board wrote a letter dated 03.03.2016requesting the District Collector, Kancheepuram to fix a fair andCreasonable value of the land. Thereafter, the State Level Committeemeeting attended by the High Level Officers had been convened andthe matter was considered and discussed at length. The State High LevelCommittee felt that the case would neither fall under the ambit of LandAcquisition Act nor under ‘Private Negotiation’ and therefore, theDCommittee felt that it has no role to play and that the District Collector iscompetent to fix the value of the land and the State Level Committeeremitted the matter to the District Collector to fix the value of the landand communicate the value determined by him to the Managing Director,TWAD Board so that a fair and reasonable compensation is sanctionedto the first respondent within the time limit fixed by the High Court in theEorder passed in Writ Petition No.3874/2016.

12. A party can be proceeded for disobedience of the order of thecourt only when there is willful disobedience and non-compliance of theorder passed by the court. On perusal of the order dated 03.02.2016passed in Writ Petition No.3874/2016, it is seen that in the said order,Fcourt has only directed the authorities to ensure fair and reasonablecompensation be sanctioned to the first respondent and be paid at theearliest. The officers quickly acted in order to comply with the directionof the High Court. When the direction was only to consider the case ofthe first respondent for ensuring fair and reasonable compensation andhaving regard to the swift action taken by the appellant and other officials,Gin our view, there was no disobedience of the order of the court, muchless wilful disobedience to invoke contempt jurisdiction.

13. After the State Level Committee remitted the matter to theDistrict Collector, the District Collector conducted a detailed enquiryand took into consideration the prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012.H

After examining the report of the Sub-Registrar, Walajabad and takinginto consideration the guideline value, by proceeding dated 23.05.2016the District Collector fixed the land value at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. whichwas the guideline value as on 01.04.2012. As pointed out earlier, thetotal value of the land was arrived at Rs.75,42,800/- and the interest atthe rate of 12% totalling Rs.1,11,80,723/- was paid to the first respondentwhich the first respondent received under protest. In compliance of theorder of the High Court, the District Collector passed the order fixingthe land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 (thoughthe land came to be in occupation of TWAD Board way back in 1991).The first respondent has not challenged the said compensation fixed atthe rate of Rs.200/- sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 in the manner known to law.In compliance of the order of the High Court, when the amount hasbeen paid to the first respondent, in our considered view, there was nodisobedience or non-compliance of the order of the court to entertainthe contempt petition.

14. In Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retired) (2008) 14SCC 392, the Supreme Court held that whether contempt has beencommitted or not is not a matter of mechanical application of mind. In agiven case, it has to be tested having regard to the subject matter of theproceeding in which it is made and the nexus between the allegedcontumacious act. In the Writ Petition No.3874/2016, the High Courtonly directed TWAD Board and its officials to ensure just and reasonablecompensation be paid to the first respondent which has been duly compliedwith by the Board by paying the compensation fixing the land value atthe rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 as per guideline value.In compliance with the order passed by the High Court, when thecompensation has been paid to the first respondent, there was no questionof disobedience of the order of the court to maintain the contempt petition.Without appreciating that the order of the High Court has been dulycomplied with, the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the contemptpetition. Apart from entertaining the contempt petition, the learned SingleJudge further fell in error in issuing positive direction to the authorities topay further compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which, inour considered view, is arbitrary and unsustainable.

15. The learned senior counsel Mr. Ramamoorthy appearing forthe Board submitted that when the contempt petition came up for hearingon 25.11.2016, the learned Single Judge issued oral instructions to theTWAD Board and the appellant Board was compelled to take further AB

C

DE

FG

H

Asteps in fixing the higher land value. It is stated that though no orderswere passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.11.2016, oral directionswere issued by the learned Single Judge. The same is reflected in theproceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016 as seen from thefollowing:-

B“….Thereafter, the land owner filed the contempt of court petitionin No.2626/2016 before the Chennai High Court. When theaforesaid case was on trial, on 25.11.2016, as per the instructionsgiven by the honourable judge, today (30.11.2016) theSuperintending Engineer of the TWAD Board and the DistrictRegistrar Kanchipuram, in the meeting held with them, it isCinformed to the land owner as follows…..”Though much reliance was placed upon the proceedings of theDistrict Collector dated 30.11.2016, we are constrained to observe thatthe said proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016 fixing theland value at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. as on 30.11.2016 was passedDunder the fear of contempt of court which, in our view, is liable to bequashed. In any event, when the entry into land was way back in 1990-91, the first respondent cannot claim that compensation be paid to himon the value of the land fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016.

16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondentEplaced reliance upon the statement of the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral who represented the Board in the Contempt Petition No.2626/2016 who has stated “….that the court should confirm itself to ordercompensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft.” This contentiondoes not merit acceptance. Be it noted that when the matter was heardby the learned Single Judge on 13.02.2017, no affidavit has been filed byFany responsible officer that the compensation may be paid to the firstrespondent at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. Since we are quashing theorder of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016, in our considered view,the first respondent cannot fall back upon statement of the learnedAdditional Advocate General made in the court. The respondent cannottake advantage of such oral concession made by the learned AdditionalGAdvocate General.

17. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself tothe four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. Observingthat in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel beyond the four H

corners of the order which is alleged to have been floated, in SudhirVasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural GasCorporation Limited and others v. M. George Ravishekaran andothers (2014) 3 SCC 373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoiheld as under:-

“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court topunish for contempt is a special and rare power available bothunder the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act,1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curbthe liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt.The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts toexercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This isalso necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contemptplea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaningand effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged.The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners ofthe order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter intoquestions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgmentor the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directionswhich are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evidentought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration asto whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation ofthe same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the pleaof equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that whileconsidering a contempt plea the power available to the Court inother corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenchedupon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been alreadyexpressed should be issued by the Court while exercisingjurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise ismore appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, asnoticed above.The above principles would appear to be thecumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely,Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004) 13 SCC610, Bihar Finance Service House ConstructionCoop. SocietyLtd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of Indiav. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613.” [underliningadded]

A

BC

DE

F

G

H

AApplying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that theSingle Judge fell in error in entertaining the contempt petition and furthererred in directing the TWAD Board to pay compensation at the rate ofRs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to more than Rs.4,00,00,000/-. It ispublic money and having implications on the public exchequer, the publicmoney cannot be allowed to be taken away by an individual by filingBcontempt petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities. The order passedby the learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench is ex-facieerroneous and liable to be set aside.18. In the result, the impugned order of the Division Bench inContempt Petition No.2/2017 and the order of the learned Single JudgeCin Contempt Petition No.2626/2016 are set aside and this appeal isallowed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H