Case: ER. K. ARUMUGAM Vs. V. BALAKRISHNAN

learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the contempt petition. Apart from entertaining the contempt petition, the learned Single Judge further fell in error in issuing positive direction to the authorities to pay further compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which, in our considered view, is arbitrary and unsustainable. 15. The learned senior counsel Mr. Ramamoorthy appearing for the Board submitted that when the contempt petition came up for hearing on 25.11.2016, the learned Single Judge issued oral instructions to the TWAD Board and the appellant Board was compelled to take further steps in fixing the higher land value. It is stated that though no orders were passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.11.2016, oral directions were issued by the learned Single Judge. The same is reflected in the proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016 as seen from the following:- ….Thereafter, the land owner filed the contempt of court petition in No.2626/2016 before the Chennai High Court. When the aforesaid case was on trial, on 25.11.2016, as per the instructions given by the honourable judge, today (30.11.2016) the Superintending Engineer of the TWAD Board and the District Registrar Kanchipuram, in the meeting held with them, it is informed to the land owner as follows….. Though much reliance was placed upon the proceedings of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016, we are constrained to observe that the said proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. as on 30.11.2016 was passed under the fear of contempt of court which, in our view, is liable to be quashed. In any event, when the entry into land was way back in 1990-91, the first respondent cannot claim that compensation be paid to him on the value of the land fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016. 16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent placed reliance upon the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General who represented the Board in the Contempt Petition No.2626/2016 who has stated ….that the court should confirm itself to order compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. This contention does not merit acceptance. Be it noted that when the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge on 13.02.2017, no affidavit has been filed by any responsible officer that the compensation may be paid to the first respondent at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. Since we are quashing the order of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016, in our considered view, the first respondent cannot fall back upon statement of the learned Additional Advocate General made in the court. The respondent cannot take advantage of such oral concession made by the learned Additional Advocate General. 17. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been floated, in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others (2014) 3 SCC 373 , speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held as under:- 19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self- determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. T arak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352 , V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004) 13 SCC 610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613. [underlining added] Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that the Single Judge fell in error in entertaining the contempt petition and further erred in directing the TWAD Board to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to more than Rs.4,00,00,000/-. It is public money and having implications on the public exchequer, the public money cannot be allowed to be taken away by an individual by filing contempt petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities. The order passed by the learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench is ex-facie erroneous and liable to be set aside.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]12. A party can be proceeded for disobedience of the order of the court only when there is willful disobedience and non- compliance of the order passed by the court. On perusal of the order dated 03.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.3874/2016, it is seen that in the said order, court has only directed the authorities to ensure fair and reasonable compensation be sanctioned to the first respondent and be paid at the earliest. The officers quickly acted in order to comply with the direction of the High Court. When the direction was only to consider the case of the first respondent for ensuring fair and reasonable compensation and having regard to the swift action taken by the appellant and other officials, in our view, there was no disobedience of the order of the court, much less wilful disobedience to invoke contempt jurisdiction13. After the State Level Committee remitted the matter to the District Collector, the District Collector conducted a detailed enquiry and took into consideration the prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012. After examining the report of the Sub-Registrar, Walajabad and taking into consideration the guideline value, by proceeding dated 23.05.2016 the District Collector fixed the land value at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on 01.04.2012. As pointed out earlier, the total value of the land was arrived at Rs.75,42,800/- and the interest at the rate of 12% totalling Rs.1,11,80,723/- was paid to the first respondent which the first respondent received under protest. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the District Collector passed the order fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 (though the land came to be in occupation of TWAD Board way back in 1991). The first respondent has not challenged the said compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.200/- sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 in the manner known to law. In compliance of the order of the High Court, when the amount has been paid to the first respondent, in our considered view, there was no disobedience or non-compliance of the order of the court to entertain the contempt petition14. In Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retired) (2008) 14 SCC 392  , the Supreme Court held that whether contempt has been committed or not is not a matter of mechanical application of mind. In a given case, it has to be tested having regard to the subject matter of the proceeding in which it is made and the nexus between the alleged contumacious act. In the Writ Petition No.3874/2016, the High Court only directed TWAD Board and its officials to ensure just and reasonable compensation be paid to the first respondent which has been duly complied with by the Board by paying the compensation fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 as per guideline value. In compliance with the order passed by the High Court, when the compensation has been paid to the first respondent, there was no question of disobedience of the order of the court to maintain the contempt petition. Without appreciating that the order of the High Court has been duly complied with, the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the contempt petition. Apart from entertaining the contempt petition, the learned Single Judge further fell in error in issuing positive direction to the authorities to pay further compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which, in our considered view, is arbitrary and unsustainableThough much reliance was placed upon the proceedings of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016, we are constrained to observe that the said proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. as on 30.11.2016 was passed under the fear of contempt of court which, in our view, is liable to be quashed. In any event, when the entry into land was way back in 1990-91, the first respondent cannot claim that compensation be paid to him on the value of the land fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.201616. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent placed reliance upon the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General who represented the Board in the Contempt Petition No.2626/2016 who has stated ….that the court should confirm itself to order compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. This contention does not merit acceptance. Be it noted that when the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge on 13.02.2017, no affidavit has been filed by any responsible officer that the compensation may be paid to the first respondent at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. Since we are quashing the order of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016, in our considered view, the first respondent cannot fall back upon statement of the learned Additional Advocate General made in the court. The respondent cannot take advantage of such oral concession made by the learned Additional Advocate GeneralApplying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that the Single Judge fell in error in entertaining the contempt petition and further erred in directing the TWAD Board to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to more than Rs.4,00,00,000/-. It is public money and having implications on the public exchequer, the public money cannot be allowed to be taken away by an individual by filing contempt petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities. The order passed by the learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench is ex-facie erroneous and liable to be set aside.