M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL vs. SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA AND ORS.

C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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 J U D G M E N T 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, 29.08.2016 and 05.01.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.10394­ Signature Not Verified 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. We   have   heard   Dr.   A.M.   Singhvi   and   Mr.   Gopal 4. Sankarnarayanan,   learned   senior   advocates   appearing   for   the petitioner and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior advocate for the respondents.   Mainly it is the contention of the learned senior counsels 5. 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 1 Duggar & Ors. , 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 2 Development Authority  v.  Mahender Singh & Anr.  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. 3 Dey & Ors.  v.  Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors.  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