M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL versus SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS. on 14 December 2021

1. These contempt petitions are filed under Section 12 of theContempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitutionof India and Rule 3(C) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt H

Aof the Supreme Court, 1975, alleging that respondents have wilfully anddeliberately violated directions issued by this Court in the order dated17.08.2015, 29.08.2016 and 05.01.2017 passed in Civil AppealNos.10394-10396 of 2011 and in Contempt Petition(C)Nos.726-728 of2015 and I.A.Nos.28-30 of 2016 in the said contempt petitions.

B2. The land admeasuring 29.38 acres belonging to the petitionersituated at Bhagalpur, Bihar was acquired under provisions of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). The notification under Section4(1) of the Act was issued at the first instance on 25.03.1981. Pursuantto abovesaid notification, possession of the land along with the structureswas taken on 20.08.1981. Said land was subsequently declared as aCprotected forest under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Anotification to that effect was issued under Indian Forest Act on04.09.1990.

2(a). As no award was passed pursuant to the notification issuedunder Section 4(1) of the Act, a fresh notification under Section 4(1) ofDthe Act was issued on 24.05.1995 and there was also further notificationto the same effect on 17.08.1996. When the subsequent notificationwas issued, same was challenged before the High Court. The said writpetition was allowed in the year 1998. In the counter affidavit filed beforeHigh Court, respondents have taken the stand that earlier acquisitionEproceedings for which notification was issued lapsed, as the award wasnot passed within the statutory period. The petitioner herein also filedanother writ petition seeking directions against the respondent-State torelease the land in question and hand over the possession to him. Therewas also a writ petition by Divisional Forest Officer challenging theaction of the State in taking steps to withdraw acquisition proceedings.FThere was also a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation, forprotecting and preserving the forest. When such petitions were pending,an award was passed on 27.09.2006, purportedly pursuant to 1981notification. All the three writ petitions were heard together by the HighCourt. When the High Court has held, notwithstanding the delay in passingGthe award, possession of the land as well as title vested in the respondent-State, matters have come to this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10394-10396of 2011. By order dated 17.08.2015, civil appeals filed by the petitionerwere allowed holding that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Act’), will apply as much as State has notH

progressed beyond making a declaration under Section 6 of the Act,pursuant to subsequent notification. The land acquisition proceedingswere declared lapsed by this Court, and the respondent-State was directedto initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or to take any other actionavailable under law within six weeks from the date of passing of theorder.

3. Alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the directions issuedin the aforesaid order, passed on 17.08.2015, earlier contempt petitionswere filed in Contempt Petition(C) Nos.726-728 of 2015. As much asfresh notification was issued during the pendency of the contempt petitionsunder Section 11 of the 2013 Act, the contempt petitions were disposedof, vide order dated 29.08.2016. The said order reads as under :

“It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearingfor the petitioner that the possession of the land in question hasalready been taken by the authorities.

If that is so, we are sure that the petitioner shall be paid the amountof compensation in accordance with law i.e. as per the provisionsof Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyin Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.In these circumstances, the contempt petition does not surviveand therefore, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionerseeks permission to withdraw the same.

Permission is granted and the contempt petitions are disposed ofas withdrawn.”

The respondent-State has subsequently filed I.A.Nos.28-30 of2016 seeking correction of the order dated 29.08.2016, the said IAswere dismissed by order dated 05.01.2017.

4. We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. GopalSankarnarayanan, learned senior advocates appearing for the petitionerand Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior advocate for the respondents.

5. Mainly it is the contention of the learned senior counsels for thepetitioner that, respondents have violated deliberately and wilfully, theseries of directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that at first instanceland was acquired by invoking urgency clause, and inspite of directionsfor payment of compensation by following the provisions under Section40 of the 2013 Act, respondents have passed the award without adhering A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Ato Section 40 of the 2013 Act and by treating the land as agriculturalforest land. It is the case of the petitioner that land acquired was usedfor construction of office and residential buildings, and inspite of thesame, contrary to various directions issued by this Court, land is treatedas agricultural forest land, a concept unknown to law. It is submitted thatwhen the applications were filed for correction of the order datedB29.08.2016, the said applications were also dismissed vide order dated05.01.2017 and benefits were not granted as per Section 40 of the 2013Act.

6. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Whiledenying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is the case of theCrespondents that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court inthe order dated 17.08.2015 a fresh notification was issued which wasalso declared as lapsed by this Court in the order dated 10.02.2020 byrecording the statement made on behalf of the State that a fresh notificationwould be issued. In the said order this Court has clarified that the courtDhas not expressed any opinion on the nature of the land etc. and leftopen all the issues. It is stated that in view of the order dated 10.02.2020,a fresh notification was issued on 14.02.2020 under Section 11 of the2013 Act and after following the necessary procedure award was passedon 12.11.2020. As such there was no violation of any directions issuedby the Court much less any wilful violation as alleged by the petitioner. ItEis the case of the respondents that if the petitioner is aggrieved by thedetermination of compensation, it is always open for the petitioner toavail remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. Without availing suchremedy under guise of contempt, petitioner is trying to enlarge the scopeof directions issued by this Court.F

7. In the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by this Court in CivilAppeal Nos.10394-10396 of 2011, while quashing the acquisitionproceedings on the ground that proceedings were lapsed, as the awardwas not passed within the prescribed period in the Act, respondent-State was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or to takeGany other action available under law. Consequent to abovesaid orderdated 17.08.2015 respondents have issued fresh notification on 14.11.2015,thereafter in the order dated 10.02.2020, this Court has noted thesubmission of the State that even the said notification dated 14.11.2015also lapsed as no award was passed, as such fresh notification wasissued thereafter on 14.02.2020. Pursuant to notification issued underH

Section 11 of the 2013 Act on 14.02.2020, award inquiry was conducted.Petitioner has filed its claim petition in the award inquiry on 08.06.2020.

8. In view of the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by this Court andthe fresh notification dated 14.02.2020 and the award dated 12.11.2020,it cannot be said that respondents have violated the directions issued bythis Court in the order dated 17.08.2015. Aggrieved by the order dated17.08.2015, when the review petition was dismissed, curative petitionwas filed and the same is pending. With regard to submission of Dr.Singhvi, learned senior counsel, that the respondents have not grantedthe benefits as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act, it is to be noted thatsubsequent in the latest notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013Act respondents have not invoked urgency clause at all. When thenotification was issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, without invokingurgency clause, the question of extending the benefits as per Section 40of the 2013 Act will not arise. In the judgment in the case of J.S. Pariharv. Ganpat Duggar & Ors.[1], relied on by learned senior counsel SriRanjit Kumar, appearing for the respondents, it is observed by this Courtthat once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis ofdirections issued by this Court, there arises a fresh cause of action toseek redressal in an appropriate forum. Further in the judgment of theCourt in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. MahenderSingh & Anr.[2] this Court has observed that the Land Acquisition Act isa complete code by itself and lays down detailed procedure for acquisitionof land, payment of compensation and common law principles of justice,equity and good conscience cannot be extended contrary to provisionsof the Statute. In the judgment in the case of R.N. Dey & Ors. v.Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors.[3] this Court has held that a decreeobtained under Land Acquisition Act, is an executable decree and nocontempt can be maintained for non-compliance of such decree. In thesame judgment it is observed that weapon of contempt is not to be usedin abundance or misused. It is further observed that discretion given tothe court in dealing with the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Actis to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of lawand further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that court shouldexercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is between contemnerand the court.

1 (1996) 6 SCC 2912 (2009) 5 SCC 3393 (2000) 4 SCC 400

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9. In view of the last notification issued under Section 11 of the2013 Act on 14.02.2020 and the award passed by the respondent-authorities, it cannot be said that respondents have deliberately andintentionally violated any directions issued by this Court, attracting theprovisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Though detailed submissionswere advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionerBstating that land was wrongly categorized in the award for fixation ofmarket value, while it is open to the petitioner to avail the remediesavailable in the Act for proper determination of compensation but at thesame time it cannot be said that respondents have violated directionsissued by this Court. Section 64 of the 2013 Act, makes it clear that anyCperson interested, who has not accepted the award, by written applicationto the Collector may seek reference to the competent authorityconstituted under Section 66 of the 2013 Act. Even after adjudicationmade by such authority on reference, there is a further remedy availableunder Section 74 to the High Court. In that view of the matter while it isopen for the petitioner to pursue remedies available in law, we do notDfind any contempt as alleged by the respondents. For the aforesaid reasonsthese contempt petitions are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Wemake it clear that we have not expressed any opinion either on thecategorization of the land or on the determination of market value in theaward dated 12.11.2020. All the issues are left open.

E

Divya Pandey