Facts
In W.P. No. 200021/2026, the High Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to consider the complainants’ applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and pass appropriate orders within three months of receiving the order.
Source reference: p.6The complainants submitted a representation on 7 April 2026 but alleged that the SLAO had not complied with the direction, prompting this contempt petition.
Source reference: pp.6–7In an affidavit, the SLAO stated that, after hearings and consideration of the records, she passed an award under Section 28-A on 28 September 2026.
Source reference: pp.7–8She acknowledged delay, attributed it to the office workload, and tendered an unconditional apology.
Source reference: pp.7–8Issues
1. Whether the SLAO’s delay in deciding the Section 28-A applications amounted to disobedience warranting contempt proceedings.
Source reference: pp.6–72. Whether the subsequent passing of the award and the unconditional apology meant that the contempt petition no longer survived for consideration.
Source reference: pp.8–9Law Applied
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, provide the basis for the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction and power to punish for contempt.
Source reference: p.5The underlying order required the SLAO to consider the applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and pass appropriate orders within the prescribed period.
Source reference: p.6The Court’s stated basis for disposing of the petition was that the direction had been complied with and an unconditional apology had been tendered; no precedent was cited.
Source reference: p.9Reasoning
The Court took the SLAO’s compliance affidavit on record and noted that an award had been passed under Section 28-A on 28 September 2026, with a copy produced as an annexure.
Source reference: pp.7–8Although the SLAO admitted delay, she sought forgiveness and tendered an unconditional apology, attributing the delay to office workload.
Source reference: pp.8–9In light of the completed compliance and apology, the Court concluded that the contempt petition no longer survived for consideration.
Source reference: p.9Holding
The Court did not make a separate finding on whether the delay constituted wilful contempt. It held that, as the direction had been complied with and an unconditional apology tendered, the petition did not survive.
The contempt petition was dropped and the notice to the respondents discharged.
Source reference: p.9Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Contempt of Courts Act, 19712
Original Court PDF
SOMSHEKHARvsMOHAMMED IKRIMULLA SHARIFF
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
