Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 343/2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2318/2014
S. K. CONTAINERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SUSMITA BHATTACHARYA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)/
ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2318/2014
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
We do not find any contumacious conduct on the
part of the respondents/alleged contemnors. The
contempt petition is dismissed.
2. Civil Appeal No. 2318/2014 is taken on Board.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. One main contention advanced by Mr. Nagendra Rai,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
JUDGMENT
is that Section 6 Notification is not issued within
one year of Section 4 Notification and hence the
proceedings have lapsed. We find it difficult to
appreciate the submission. The learned Single Judge
in W.P. No.4644/1988 passed the interim order dated
9.9.1988 for a period of three weeks but with a
further direction to post the case on 23.09.1988,
well within three weeks. However, the case was
posted only on 14.11.1988 when the Court was pleased
to continue “subsisting” interim order. In the facts
and circumstances explained above, and as rightly
1
Page 1
held by the Division Bench, the interim order had to
be deemed to be existing as on the date of extension.
Yet another serious argument is for public purpose.
However, it is not in dispute that the acquisition is
for educational purposes.
5. We also find that after the Land Acquisition
Collector passed the Award, the appellants had in
fact filed an application under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
as, the Act) for enhancement of compensation.
Section 18 (1) of the Act reads as under:-
“18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person
interested who has not accepted the award
may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be
referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the
land, the amount of the compensation, the
persons to whom it is payable, or the
apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested.”
6. Once an application under Section 18 of the Act
is filed, the presumption under law is that the owner
or the person interested in the land has certain
objections with regard to (i) measurement of the
JUDGMENT
land, (ii) amount of compensation, (iii) persons to
whom it is payable and (iv) apportionment of the
compensation.
7. Admittedly, the appellants have filed an
application under Section 18 of the Act and,
therefore, it is for them to pursue the said remedy.
8. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in
this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. We make it clear that the disposal of this appeal
shall not stand in the way of the appellants pursuing
the application for reference.
2
Page 2
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
11. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 28, 2017.
JUDGMENT
3
Page 3