The Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy while dealing with a case regarding to Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reiterated its previous decision and opined that a decree obtained under the said Act is an executable decree and no contempt can be maintained for noncompliance of such decree. They also opined that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. It was further opined 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, since contempt is between contemner and the court.
Facts
The land measuring 29.38 acres belonging to the petitioner situated at Bhagalpur, Bihar was acquired under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘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 u/s 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. A notification to that effect was issued under Indian Forest Act on 04.09.1990.
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.
Procedural History
When the subsequent notification was issued, same was challenged before the High Court. The said writ petition was allowed. In the counter affidavit filed before High Court, respondents took the stand that earlier acquisition proceedings for which notification was issued lapsed, as the 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 purportedly pursuant to 1981 notification. All the three writ petitions were heard together by the High Court. When the High Court held, notwithstanding the delay in passing the award, possession of the land as well as title vested in the respondentState, matters came to this Court. The 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 (‘2013 Act’), will apply as much as State has not progressed beyond making a declaration u/s 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. 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.726728 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.
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.
Contentions made
Appellant: The respondents violated the series of directions issued by this Court deliberately and wilfully. At first instance land was acquired by invoking urgency clause, and despite directions for payment of compensation by following the provisions u/s 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 buildings, and despite the same, contrary to various directions issued by this Court, land is treated as agricultural forest land, a concept unknown to law. When the applications were filed for correction of the order dated 29.08.2016, the said applications were also dismissed, and benefits were not granted as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act.
Respondent: 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 clarified that the court did not express any opinion on the nature of the land etc. and left open all the issues. In view of the order dated 10.02.2020, a fresh notification was issued on 14.02.2020 u/s 11 of the 2013 Act and after following the 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. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the determination of compensation; it was open for him to avail remedy u/s 64 of the 2013 Act. Without availing such remedy under guise of contempt, petitioner was trying to enlarge the scope of directions issued by this Court.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“With regard to submission 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 u/s of the 2013 Act respondents have not invoked urgency clause at all. When the notification was issued u/s 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 arise. In view of the last notification issued u/s 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. Section 64 of the 2013 Act, makes it clear that any person interested, who has not accepted the award, by written application to the Collector may seek reference to the competent authority constituted u/s 66 of the 2013 Act. Even after adjudication made by such authority on reference, there is a further remedy available u/s 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.”
Judgment
The contempt petitions were dismissed. But the Bench did not express any opinion either on the categorization of the land or on the determination of market value in the award dated 12.11.2020.
Case Name: M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull vs Sri Brijesh Mehrotra & Ors.
Citation: Contempt Petition(C) Nos.726728 of 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.1039410396 of 2011
Bench: Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Decided on: 14th December 2021
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments