Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1379
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10346 OF 2024
BHASKAR GOVIND GAVATE ( NOW DECEASED )
THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated
26.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003. By the said judgment, the
Contempt Petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed by
holding that the order of which non-compliance was alleged was
capable of two interpretations and hence the Court was not
inclined to initiate any action in exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
2. Since the grievance of the appellants is that there has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.12.04
15:38:02 IST
Reason:
been non-compliance of the judgment passed in proceedings
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 1 of 13
initiated by them, it would be necessary to briefly refer to the said
proceedings. The predecessor of the appellants, Shri Bhaskar
Govind Gavate had filed Writ Petition No.3412 of 1992 seeking a
writ of mandamus for completion of acquisition proceedings in
respect of land bearing Gat No.78 to the extent of 12 acres 24
gunthas of Village Chinchavali, Taluka and District Thane.
Various other reliefs including the relief of seeking possession
were sought. Similarly placed four other petitioners had also filed
separate writ petitions. On 17.01.2003, all the five writ petitions
came to be disposed of by passing the following common order:-
“Coram – Shri R.M. Lodha &
Smt. Nishita Mhatre. JJ.
Dated : January 17, 2003
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.M. LODHA, J.):
1. In this group of Writ Petitions, at the outset, Mr.
Nargolkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, tendered
an affidavit of P.D. Nikumbh, Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Ulhas Valley Project, Thane. The same is taken on record. In
the said affidavit, a statement has been made that Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 have no objection to hand over the possession of
the land as it stands today and which is in possession of the
State Government.
2. Mr. C.J. Sawant, learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No.5 submitted that the land of which possession
has not been given to the State Government or for that matter
Special Land Acquisition Officer for handing over to the
Petitioners, which is being used for public purpose, steps have
been initiated for acquisition thereof. The learned Senior
Counsel also submitted that some of the land, which is not
being used for public purpose and which still remains with the
Corporation despite the order of this Court passed on
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 2 of 13
10.06.1967 and the judgment of the Apex Court (AIR 1977 SC
183) dated 11.10.1976, shall be immediately handed over to
the Special Land Acquisition Officer for delivery of possession
thereor to the Petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel also
submitted that compensation shall be paid to the Petitioner for
the portion of the land which continues to be in possession of
the Corporation or the assignee Industries until acquisition of
such land is complete and the possession of which continues
with the Corporation which may be mutually agreed between
the Petitioners and them or as may be determined by the
competent forum.
3. Mr. Oka learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the light
of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader and the learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No.5, prayer for withdrawal of the Writ Petitions.
4. Consequently, we dispose of this group of Writ petitions
by following order:
ORDER
i) All the Writ petitions are allowed to be withdrawn.
ii) The Land Special Acquisition Officer
Respondent No.4 is directed to hand over possession of
the land as it stands today which is in possession of the
State Government to the Petitioners immediately. We
record the statement of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners that the Petitioners or their representatives
will attend the Office of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 22.01.2003. We also record the statement of
the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer on that day will deliver
the possession of the land which is in possession of the
State Government in the position it stands today.
iii) We record that the learned Assistant
Government Pleader made the statement after seeking
instructions from Mr. P.D. Nikumbh, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, who is present in Court.
iv) We accept the statement of the learned Senior
Counsel for Respondent No.5 that the land which is
being used for public purpose and for which acquisition
proceedings have been initiated, until the acquisition
proceedings completed, the Petitioners shall be paid due
compensation which may be mutually agreed to or as
may be determined by competent forum. We also accept
the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 3 of 13
Respondent No.5 that the piece of land which remains
unutilised and not handed over back to the Special Land
Acquisition Officer till date, shall be handed over to the
Special Land Acquisition Officer by 20.01.2003 for further
deliver the Petitioners on 22.01.2003.
v) The petitioner are at liberty to pursue
Appropriate remedy for compensation from Respondent
Nos.1 to 5 for the loss suffered by them, if any, by not
restored their land back to them soon after the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the year 1976.
vi) As regards the grievance of the Petitioners any,
against Respondent No.6 or any other person having
unauthorisedly illegally deprived the Petitioner from their
property, the Petitioners are at liberty to pursue
appropriate remedy available in law for redressal of their
grievance.
5. No costs.
6. Parties may also be provided an ordinary copy of order
duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar on payment of
usual copying charges.”
(emphasis supplied by us).
3. According to the appellants, pursuant to the aforesaid
order, they visited the office of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer and sought compliance of the statements made and
recorded in the aforesaid order. Since there was no compliance
in that regard, the appellants preferred Contempt Petition No.315
of 2003. In paragraph 5 of the Contempt Petition, it was pleaded
that land admeasuring 2 acres 15 gunthas from Gat No.78 was
a pipeline and service road for the benefit of the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation - MIDC and for industries in
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 4 of 13
the area. Though compensation for the use of the lands was paid
initially for three to four years, the appellants herein had not been
paid anything thereafter. The relevant averments thereafter are
contained in paragraph Nos.8 to 10. The same read as under:-
“8. The Petitioner states that thereafter the Petitioner
personally visited the office of Respondent No.4 several times
and made inquires and requested that the possession of the
land bearing Gat of No.78 be handed over to him as per the
order Hon’ble High Court. However no steps or any action was
taken by Respondent No.4 in respect of handing over taken
possession of the said land to the Petitioner in spite of
repeated requests made by the Petitioner.
9. The petitioner therefore sent Letters dated 24/02/2003
and 5/5/2003 as and by of reminder requesting that the
possession of Gat No.78 be handed over to him. However no
reply was given to the said notice nor any action was taken in
that behalf. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT ‘B’
collectively is the copy of the letters dated 5.5.2003. The
Petitioner states that no reply was given to the said notice nor
any action was taken by Respondent No.4. The Petitioner
therefore sent a notice through his Advocate dated 19.06.2003
calling upon the Respondent No.4 to deliver and handover the
possession of land bearing Gat No.78 within period of fifteen
days receipt of the notice. The Petitioner states that the said
notice was received by Respondent No.4 on 24.6.2003.
Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT ‘C’ is the copy of the
acknowledgment.
10. The Petitioner state that till date the possession of the
land bearing Gat No.78 situated at Chinchvali Taluka and
District Thane is not being handed over to Petitioner. Here to
annexed and marked as EXHIBIT ‘D’ is the copy of notice
dated 19.6.2003. The Petitioner states that the Respondent
No.4 has purposely and deliberately disobeyed the order
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.3412 of 1992
and hence Respondent No.4 be held guilty of having
committed gross contempt of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition
No.3412 of 1992. The Petitioner has therefore, filed the
present contempt petition praying that Respondent No.4 be
held guilty of having committed breach and wilful disobedience
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 5 of 13
of the orders dated 17.1.2003 passed by this Hon’ble Court, in
Writ Petition No.3412/1992.”
4. In response to the Contempt Petition, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer filed an affidavit dated 14.10.2003. In
paragraph 2 of the said affidavit, he specifically stated that
pursuant to the directions issued in the writ petition, possession
of the lands that were with the State Government were handed
over to the petitioners on 22.01.2003. He referred to the
possession receipt in that regard. With regard to land situated in
Gat No.78, he stated in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit that on
07.10.1970, an award came to be passed with regard to the said
land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - the
Act of 1894. Compensation was also paid to the erstwhile owner
of the said land. Thereafter, possession of the said land was
handed over to the MIDC and as recorded in the Order dated
17.01.2003, the said land was in possession of the MIDC. He,
therefore, stated that he had not committed any contempt.
The petitioner in the Contempt Petition filed an affidavit
in rejoinder in response to the aforesaid affidavit. He specifically
stated that possession of land bearing Gat No.78 admeasuring
12 acres 22 gunthas had not been handed over to the petitioner.
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 6 of 13
As regards passing of the award on 07.10.1970, it was stated
that the same was not brought on record during pendency of the
writ petition and that the said contention was being raised for the
first time in the contempt proceedings. He denied passing of any
award.
5. On behalf of the MIDC, an affidavit was filed denying the
allegations of disobedience of the order dated 17.01.2003. The
original petitioner filed his affidavit in rejoinder and denied similar
contentions raised on behalf of MIDC.
The Collector, Thane District also filed his affidavit in
reply on 02.07.2004. He reiterated the factual position as
indicated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his affidavit
and stated that possession of the lands was handed over to the
original petitioner on 22.01.2003. As regards land from Gat
No.78, it was stated that an award was passed on 07.10.1970
and compensation had been paid to the owners. It was stated
that the said respondents had complied with all orders as passed.
In paragraph No.9 of the said affidavit, it was stated that since
possession of the lands in question had been handed over to the
MIDC, there was no question of handing back possession of the
said lands to the original petitioner.
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 7 of 13
The original petitioner filed his rejoinder to the aforesaid
affidavit and reiterated that he had not received possession of
the lands in terms of the order dated 17.01.2003. He further
stated that a request had been made by him seeking production
of the original record and proceedings from the MIDC to indicate
the factual position.
6. During the course of the contempt proceedings, the
respondents to the said proceedings were directed to produce
the relevant records for perusal of the Court as can be seen from
the order dated 08.07.2009 passed in the Contempt Petition. The
relevant extract of the said order reads as under:-
“3. The learned AGP submits that copy of the award must have
been preserved in the office of Additional Government Pleader
(Writ Cell) and on the next date of hearing he will produce the
same for perusal of the Court. In the circumstances mentioned
above, office is directed to place this petition for final hearing
th
on 24 July, 2009.”
7. The Contempt Petition was thereafter heard by the
Division Bench. It perused the material available on record and
was of the view that there was no clear and categorical direction
issued by the High Court in the order dated 17.01.2003. The
statement made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the
possession of the lands claimed by the appellants would be
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 8 of 13
handed over or compensation would be paid was ambiguous and
it was not clear as to whether the said statement was made with
regard to the present appellants. It was therefore observed that
the Court was not in a position to interpret the statement made
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or by the MIDC as sought
to be canvassed. By holding that the order dated 17.01.2003 was
unclear and capable of two interpretations, the High Court
declined to initiate any action against the Special Land
Acquisition Officer for violation of the order dated 17.01.2003.
The Contempt Petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence, this
appeal.
8. We have heard Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Advocate
with Mr. Shreeyash Lalit, learned Advocate for the appellants,
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned Advocate for the State of
Maharashtra and Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, learned Senior
Advocate on behalf of the MIDC. We have also perused the
records of the case that were summoned by this Court. Having
given due consideration to all relevant aspects, in our view, the
High Court was not correct in dismissing the Contempt Petition
on the ground that the Order dated 17.01.2003 passed in Writ
Petition No.3412 of 1992 was not clear, that no categorical
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 9 of 13
direction had been issued therein or that any ambiguous
statement was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
stating that the possession of the lands claimed by the original
petitioner would be handed over or compensation would be paid.
The Division Bench further observed that the order dated
17.01.2003 was unclear and capable of two interpretations.
9. We may briefly indicate why the Division Bench erred in
failing to entertain the Contempt Petition on merits. In Writ
Petition No.3412 of 1992, the original petitioner had specifically
prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to
complete the acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894 and
to pay compensation accordingly. The original petitioner also
prayed for grant of compensation from 1964 till the passing of the
award. It was also prayed that possession of the lands that
remained unutilized be handed over to the original petitioner. The
common order dated 17.01.2003 passed in Writ Petition No.3412
of 1992 along with four other writ petitions makes it clear that the
statements recorded therein related to all the petitioners. The
operative part of the order indicates that the original petitioners
or their representatives were to attend the office of the Special
Land Acquisition Officer on 22.01.2003 and on that day
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 10 of 13
possession of the lands that were with the State Government
were to be handed over to them. Similarly, insofar as the MIDC
was concerned, it was directed to pay compensation of an
amount to be mutually agreed to all as determined by the
competent forum. Unutilized land that remained with the MIDC
was to be handed over to the Special Land Acquisition Officer by
20.01.2003 for being delivered to the original petitioners on
22.01.2003.
10. We have reproduced the averments made by the original
petitioner in Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003 in paragraph No.3
(supra). The averments in paragraph Nos.8 to 10 therein clearly
raised a grievance that the original petitioner was not handed
over possession of the lands in question and that there was non-
compliance of the direction issued on 17.01.2003 in Writ Petition
No.3412 of 1992. The High Court ought to have considered the
grievance of the original petitioner in the light of the averments
made in the Contempt Petition. It was for this purpose that on
08.07.2009, the relevant record was directed to be placed before
the Court for perusal since the State Government sought to
contend that an award under the Act of 1894 had been passed.
The impugned order, however, does not indicate consideration of
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 11 of 13
this aspect. The Division Bench was of the view that the
statement recorded in the order dated 17.01.2003 did not
indicate whether the same pertained to the original petitioner in
Writ Petition No.3412 of 1992 or to other writ petitioners. When
the original petitioner had made a specific grievance as regards
non-compliance of the direction issued on 17.01.2003, the
Division Bench ought to have examined such grievance in the
light of the material placed before it. Absence of any grievance
by other landowners would not imply that the directions issued in
favour of the original petitioner either stood complied with or were
inconsequential. The common order dated 17.01.2003 has to be
read as a whole and when it is so read, it is clear that there is a
clear and categorical direction issued by the Division Bench on
17.01.2003 in the matter of attending the office of the Special
Land Acquisition Officer on 22.01.2003 and delivering
possession of the lands that were in possession of the State
Government on that day. The Division Bench ought to have
examined the matter from this perspective. Having failed to do
so, Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003 preferred by the original
petitioner deserves to be reconsidered by the High Court
especially in the light of the statement made and recorded by the
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 12 of 13
Division Bench in the order dated 17.01.2003 passed in Writ
Petition No.3412 of 1992. Since the proceedings are being
remanded for a fresh consideration, we have declined to enter
into the merits of the rival submissions that were made before us.
For the record, we may state that the award dated 07.10.1970
was not produced before this Court by the respondents.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment dated
26.02.2022 passed in Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003 is set
aside. The proceedings in Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003 are
restored before the High Court for being considered afresh in the
light of the observations made hereinabove. It is, however,
clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the rival submissions and that the same can be raised before the
High Court for its consideration. The Civil Appeal is allowed and
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
….………………………………………..J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
DECEMBER 04, 2025.
10346 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. Page 13 of 13