M/S Soorajmull Nagarmull vs Sri Brijesh Mehrotra And Ors.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.726­728 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10394­10396 OF 2011

M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull …..Petitioner

Versus

Sri Brijesh Mehrotra & Ors. …..Respondents

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. These contempt petitions are filed under Section 12 of

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the

Constitution of India and Rule 3(C) of the Rules to Regulate

Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, alleging

that respondents have wilfully and deliberately violated

directions issued by this Court in the order dated 17.08.2015,

Signature Not Verified 29.08.2016 and 05.01.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.10394­ Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2021.12.14 17:27:13 IST Reason: 10396 of 2011 and in Contempt Petition(C)Nos.726­728 of 2015

and I.A.Nos.28­30 of 2016 in the said contempt petitions. 1 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

2. The land admeasuring 29.38 acres belonging to the

petitioner situated at Bhagalpur, Bihar was acquired under

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’).

The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued at the

first instance on 25.03.1981. Pursuant to abovesaid notification,

possession of the land along with the structures was taken on

20.08.1981. Said land was subsequently declared as a protected

forest under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. A

notification to that effect was issued under Indian Forest Act on

04.09.1990.

2(a). As no award was passed pursuant to the notification

issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, a fresh notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.05.1995 and there was

also further notification to the same effect on 17.08.1996. When

the subsequent notification was issued, same was challenged

before the High Court. The said writ petition was allowed in the

year 1998. In the counter affidavit filed before High Court,

respondents have taken the stand that earlier acquisition

proceedings for which notification was issued lapsed, as the

2 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

award was not passed within the statutory period. The petitioner

herein also filed another writ petition seeking directions against

the respondent­State to release the land in question and hand

over the possession to him. There was also a writ petition by

Divisional Forest Officer challenging the action of the State in

taking steps to withdraw acquisition proceedings. There was also

a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation, for protecting

and preserving the forest. When such petitions were pending, an

award was passed on 27.09.2006, purportedly pursuant to 1981

notification. All the three writ petitions were heard together by

the High Court. When the High Court has held, notwithstanding

the delay in passing the award, possession of the land as well as

title vested in the respondent­State, matters have come to this

Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10394­10396 of 2011. By order dated

17.08.2015, civil appeals filed by the petitioner were allowed

holding that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Act’), will apply as much

as State has not progressed beyond making a declaration under

3 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

Section 6 of the Act, pursuant to subsequent notification. The

land acquisition proceedings were declared lapsed by this Court,

and the respondent­State was directed to initiate fresh

acquisition proceedings or to take any other action available

under law within six weeks from the date of passing of the order.

3. Alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the directions

issued in the aforesaid order, passed on 17.08.2015, earlier

contempt petitions were filed in Contempt Petition(C) Nos.726­

728 of 2015. As much as fresh notification was issued during

the pendency of the contempt petitions under Section 11 of the

2013 Act, the contempt petitions were disposed of, vide order

dated 29.08.2016. The said order reads as under :

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

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

4 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

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

The respondent­State has subsequently filed I.A.Nos.28­30 of

2016 seeking correction of the order dated 29.08.2016, the said

IAs were dismissed by order dated 05.01.2017.

4. We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Gopal

Sankarnarayanan, learned senior advocates appearing for the

petitioner and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior advocate for the

respondents.

5. Mainly it is the contention of the learned senior counsels

for the petitioner that, respondents have violated deliberately and

wilfully, the series of directions issued by this Court. It is

submitted that at first instance land was acquired by invoking

urgency clause, and inspite of directions for payment of

compensation by following the provisions under Section 40 of the

2013 Act, respondents have passed the award without adhering

to Section 40 of the 2013 Act and by treating the land as

agricultural forest land. It is the case of the petitioner that land

acquired was used for construction of office and residential

5 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

buildings, and inspite of the same, contrary to various directions

issued by this Court, land is treated as agricultural forest land, a

concept unknown to law. It is submitted that when the

applications were filed for correction of the order dated

29.08.2016, the said applications were also dismissed vide order

dated 05.01.2017 and benefits were not granted as per Section

40 of the 2013 Act.

6. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents.

While denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is the

case of the respondents that in compliance of the directions

issued by this Court in the order dated 17.08.2015 a fresh

notification was issued which was also declared as lapsed by this

Court in the order dated 10.02.2020 by recording the statement

made on behalf of the State that a fresh notification would be

issued. In the said order this Court has clarified that the court

has not expressed any opinion on the nature of the land etc. and

left open 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 the 2013 Act and after following the

6 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

necessary procedure award was passed on 12.11.2020. As such

there was no violation of any directions issued by the Court

much less any wilful violation as alleged by the petitioner. It is

the case of the respondents that if the petitioner is aggrieved by

the determination of compensation, it is always open for the

petitioner to avail remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

Without availing such remedy under guise of contempt,

petitioner is trying to enlarge the scope of directions issued by

this Court.

7. In the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by this Court in

Civil Appeal Nos.10394­10396 of 2011, while quashing the

acquisition proceedings on the ground that proceedings were

lapsed, as the award was not passed within the prescribed period

in the Act, respondent­State was directed to initiate fresh

acquisition proceedings or to take any other action available

under law. Consequent to abovesaid order dated 17.08.2015

respondents have issued fresh notification on 14.11.2015,

thereafter in the order dated 10.02.2020, this Court has noted

the submission of the State that even the said notification dated

7 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

14.11.2015 also lapsed as no award was passed, as such fresh

notification was issued thereafter on 14.02.2020. Pursuant to

notification issued under 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 and the fresh notification dated 14.02.2020 and the award

dated 12.11.2020, it cannot be said that respondents have

violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated

17.08.2015. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2015, when the

review petition was dismissed, curative petition was filed and the

same is pending. With regard to submission of Dr. Singhvi,

learned senior counsel, that the respondents have not granted

the benefits as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act, it is to be noted

that subsequent in the latest notification issued under Section

11 of the 2013 Act respondents have not invoked urgency clause

at all. When the notification was issued under Section 11 of the

2013 Act, without invoking urgency clause, the question of

extending the benefits as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act will not

8 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

arise. In the judgment in the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat

Duggar & Ors.1, relied on by learned senior counsel Sri Ranjit

Kumar, appearing for the respondents, it is observed by this

Court that once there is an order passed by the Government on

the basis of directions issued by this Court, there arises a fresh

cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. Further in the judgment of the Court in the case of Delhi

Development Authority v. Mahender Singh & Anr.2 this Court

has observed that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code by

itself and lays down detailed procedure for acquisition of land,

payment of compensation and common law principles of justice,

equity and good conscience cannot be extended contrary to

provisions of the Statute. In the judgment in the case of R.N.

Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors.3 this Court has held

that a decree obtained under Land Acquisition Act, is an

executable decree and no contempt can be maintained for non­

compliance of such decree. In the same judgment it is observed

that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or 1 (1996) 6 SCC 291 2 (2009) 5 SCC 339 3 (2000) 4 SCC 400

9 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

misused. It is further observed that discretion given to the court

in dealing with the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act is

to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of

law and further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that

court should exercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is

between contemner and the court.

9. In view of the last notification issued under Section 11 of

the 2013 Act on 14.02.2020 and the award passed by the

respondent­authorities, it cannot be said that respondents have

deliberately and intentionally violated any directions issued by

this Court, attracting the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act,

1971. Though detailed submissions were advanced by the

learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner stating that

land was wrongly categorized in the award for fixation of market

value, while it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedies

available in the Act for proper determination of compensation but

at the same time it cannot be said that respondents have violated

directions issued by this Court. Section 64 of the 2013 Act,

makes it clear that any person interested, who has not accepted

10 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017

the award, by written application to the Collector may seek

reference to the competent authority constituted under Section

66 of the 2013 Act. Even after adjudication made by such

authority on reference, there is a further remedy available under

Section 74 to the High Court. In that view of the matter while it

is open for the petitioner to pursue remedies available in law, we

do not find any contempt as alleged by the respondents. For the

aforesaid reasons these contempt petitions are dismissed, with

no order as to costs. We make it clear that we have not

expressed any opinion either on the categorization of the land or

on the determination of market value in the award dated

12.11.2020. All the issues are left open.

……………………………J. [R. Subhash Reddy]

……………………………J. [Hrishikesh Roy] New Delhi.

December 14, 2021.

11