Case: M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull Vs. Sri Brijesh Mehrotra &amp; Ors

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 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.10394-10396 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, respondent-State 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 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 arise. In the judgment in the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & Ors.(1996) 6 SCC 291 , 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 Development Authority v. Mahender Singh & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 339 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. Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 400 this Court has held that a decree obtained under Land Acquisition Act, is an executable decree and no contempt can be maintained for noncompliance of such decree. In the same judgment it is observed that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or 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 courts 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 respondent-authorities, 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 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 arise. In the judgment in the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & Ors.(1996) 6 SCC 291 ,  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 Development Authority v. Mahender Singh & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 339  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. Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 400  this Court has held that a decree obtained under Land Acquisition Act, is an executable decree and no contempt can be maintained for noncompliance of such decree. In the same judgment it is observed that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or 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 courts 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 respondent-authorities, 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 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.