Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
JIWANI KUMARI PAREKH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SATYABRATA CHAKRAVORTY, MANAGING DIRECTORAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/10/1990
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 326 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 246
1990 SCC (4) 737 JT 1990 (4) 174
1990 SCALE (2)833
ACT:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: S.
2(b)--Contempt---Committal for--Wilful or deliberate disobe-
dience of Court’s orders--Necessity for.
HEADNOTE:
By its order dated January 16, 1990 in the writ
petition, the Court had directed respondent No. 4 to band
over possession of the premises requisitioned under the West
Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provi-
sions) Act, 1947, within nine weeks subject to their obtain-
ing any order from the High Court or acquiring any independ-
ent right within that period to retain possession.
In the meantime, the Land Acquisition (West, Bengal
Amendment) Act, 1986, which inserted s. 49A in the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 as applicable to the State, came into
force on February 14, 1990 permitting acqusition of a part
of a house. A week thereafter the State Government initiated
acquisition process in respect of the said premises. Notifi-
cations under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were
issued, and the Land Acquisition Collector authorised to
take possession under s. 17(1) of the Act. However, on March
20, 1990 in a writ challenging the validity of the acquisi-
tion proceedings the High Court directed the status quo to
be maintained regarding possession.
In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged
that the respondent had deliberately failed to hand over
possession in terms of the order dated January 16, 1990. The
acquisition was also assailed as being patently bad in law.
HELD: 1. Before a party can be committed for con-
tempt, then must be a wilful or deliberate disobedience of
the orders of the Court In the instant case, no such wilful
or deliberate or reckless disobedient, of the order dated
January 16, 1990 has been committed by the respondent to the
contempt petition. [249F]
2. The question whether the acquisition is valid or not is
pending
247
for decision in the High Court. In case the petitioner
succeeds the respondent would have remained in possession of
the said premises for a long time after they should have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
handed-over the possession. They are, therefore, directed to
deposit an amount of Rs. I0,000 per month commencing from
1st October, 1990 in the Court in addition to Rs.15,000 per
month they are already paying under the earlier directions.
[250A-C]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIl, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No. 71
of 1990.
AND
Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 1990.
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 1222 of 1983.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Shanti Bhushan, Bashant Bhushan, Bohla Prasad Singh for
the Petitioner.
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok H.
Desai, Solicitor General, Tapas Roy, Ratin Das and D.K.
Sinha for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KANIA, J. Seth Mannalal Surana Memorial Trust is the
owner of a building situate at 7/ID, Lindsay Street, Calcut-
ta, one of the busiest streets in Calcutta where the New
Market is situated. The petitioner is the lessee of the said
building from the said Trust. On February 25, 1958, a por-
tion of the ground-floor premises in the said building
admeasuring 4198 Sq. ft. (referred to hereinafter as "the
said premises") was requisitioned by the Government of West
Bengal under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Con-
trol (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred
to as "the West Bengal Act"). The purpose for which the said
premises were requisitioned was establishing the main show-
room of West Bengal Handicraft Development Corporation
Limited, a West Bengal Government Undertaking. The said show
room is called "Manjusha" and has become a landmark in
Calcutta. In H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra and Others,
[1984] 2 SCC 337 this Court held that the provisions for,
248
requisition could be resorted to only where premises were
required for a temporary purpose but not where they were
required for a permanent purpose. If premises were required
for a permanent purpose, they have to be acquired in accord-
ance with law. Following upon this decision, the petitioner
filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1 1222 of 1983 in this
Court praying for a mandatory order directing that the
premises should be derequisitioned and handed over to the
petitioner. Certain interim applications were made in this
Court and orders were passed thereon to which it is not
necessary to refer in this Judgment.
By an order dated January 16, 1990, certain directions
were given to respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. The
relevant portion of the said order runs as follows:
"In view of the earlier orders, we direct respondent No. 4
to hand over the possession of the premises in question to
the petitioner within nine weeks from today subject to their
obtaining any order from the Calcutta High Court in the
appeal pending in that Court against the decision of a
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2063 of 1987 or acquiring
any independent right to retain possession of the suit
premises within that period.
It is contended by Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned coun-
sel for the petitioner that as the respondents have not
succeeded in obtaining any order from the Calcutta High
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
Court in the said appeal or in acquiring any independent
right to retain possession of the said premises within the
period of nine weeks from January 16, 1990, as set out in
the said order, they were bound to hand over the possession
of the said premises to the petitioner and have committed
contempt as they have deliberately failed to do so.
We find that it is not possible to accept the submis-
sion set out hereinabove. On February 21, 1990, the Govern-
ment of West Bengal issued a notification under section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of West
’Bengal, declaring its intention to acquire the said prem-
ises. On February 27, 1990, the said declaration was duly
published. By the beginning of March 1990 the declaration
under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of
the said premises was duly made and published and on 1st of
March. 1990 the Government of West Bengal authorised the
First Lanisition Collector to take possession of the said
premises under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Public notices were given on 9th March,
249
1990. A few days later, the trustees of the said trust which
owned the said building filed a writ petition in the Calcut-
ta High Court challenging the validity of the acquisition
proceedings in respect of the said premises which had been
initiated consequent upon the amendment of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act as applicable to the State of West Bengal and on
20th March, 1990, the Calcutta High Court directed the
status quo to be maintained regarding possession.
It is clear that unless the said order dated March 20,
1990, is vacated, it is not possible for the respondents to
proceed with the acquisition and acquire title to the prem-
ises. The contention of the learned counsel for the peti-
tioner is that the acquisition is patently bad in law as it
is not open to the Government to acquire the said premises
on the ground-floor of the said building without acquiring
the corresponding area on the upper floors. It was submitted
by him that such acquisition would be clearly bad in law in
spite of the amendment carried out to the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of West Bengal by
the insertion of Section 49 A therein by Land Acquisition
(West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1986, which came into force on
February 14, 1990, after obtaining the consent of the Presi-
dent of India. Section 49A permits acquisition of a part of
a house. In our view, the question whether the acquisition
is valid or not is pending for decision in the Calcutta High
Court in the said writ petition filed by the said trust as
owner of the building challenging the validity of the said
amendment.
In our opinion, before a party can be committed for
contempt, there must be a wilful or deliberate disobedience
of the orders of the Court. In the present case, we do not
find that any such wilful or deliberate or reckless disobe-
dience of our order dated January. 16, 1990, has been com-
mitted by the respondent to the contempt petition. Hence,
the contempt petition is dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs.
We hope that the Calcutta High Court will be able to
dispose of the said writ petition challenging the validity
of the said amendment as early as possible.
Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 1990 in writ petition
No. 11222 of 1983 is not pressed and is allowed to be with-
drawn with liberty to renew the same if any occasion arises.
Although we are of the view that the respondent has not
commit-
250
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
ted contempt, we do realise that in case the petitioner
succeeds in the writ petition, the respondent would have
remained in possession of the said premises for a long time
after they should have handed over the possession of the
same to the petitioner. We find that the respondent has
already been directed to pay compensation for the use of the
said premises at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per month by an
order of this Court passed over two years earlier. We direct
that the respondent shall deposit, in addition, an amount of
Rs. 10,000 per month commencing from 1st October, 1990, in
the Court, the first of such deposits to be made on or
before 20th October, 1990, and deposits for each succeeding
month to be made by 15th day of each succeeding month. The
amounts deposited shall be invested by the Registrar-General
at suitable intervals in a nationalised bank in fixed depos-
it after consulting the parties.
P.S.S.
251