M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL versus SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 725, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
725
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 725
725
M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL
v.
SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.
Contempt Petition(c) Nos.726 -728 of 2017
 In
(Civil Appeal Nos.10394-10396 of 2011)
DECEMBER 14, 2021
[ R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt – When not – Land
belonging to the petitioner acquired under 1894 Act – s.4
notification issued in 1981, possession taken – Land subsequently
declared as protected forest – No award passed – Fresh/further
notifications issued – Challenged by petitioner in writ petition,
various other writ petitions pending – Award passed in 2006
purportedly pursuant to 1981 notification – High Court held that
the possession and title of the land vested in the respondent-State –
Petitioner’s appeals in Supreme Court allowed vide order
dtd.17.08.15 holding that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed
and the provisions of 2013 Act were to apply; State directed to initiate
fresh acquisition proceedings – Contempt petitions filed alleging
violation of aforesaid directions – Fresh notification u/s.11, 2013
Act issued during the pendency thereof – Contempt petitions disposed
of vide order dtd.29.08.16 observing that as possession of the land
in question was already taken, the petitioner shall be paid
compensation as per s.40, 2013 Act – State sought correction of the
aforesaid order – IAs dismissed vide order dtd. 05.01.17 – Violation
of orders dtd.17.08.15, 29.08.16 and 05.01.17 alleged – Held: In
view of order
dtd. 10.02.20 passed by this Court; the fresh
notification dtd. 14.02.20 and the award dtd. 12.11.20, it cannot
be said that respondents have violated the directions issued by this
Court in the order dtd. 17.08.15 – Thus, in view of the last notification
issued u/s.11, 2013 Act on 14.02.20 and the award passed by the
authorities, it cannot be said that respondents have deliberately
violated any directions issued by this Court –Further, when the
notification was issued u/s.11, 2013 Act, without invoking urgency
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
clause, the question of extending the benefits as per s.40, 2013 Act
will not arise – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4, 6 – Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.11, 40, 64, 66, 74 – Indian Forest
Act, 1927 – s.29.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD : 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. 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. Further, 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 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. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
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.
While it is open for the petitioner to pursue remedies available
in law, this Court does not find any contempt as alleged by the
respondents. [Paras 7-9][730-F-H; 731-A-D; 732-A-D]
J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC
291 : [1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 110; Delhi Development
Authority v. Mahender Singh & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 339
: [2009] 4 SCR 788; R.N. Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati
Pramanik & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 400 : [2000] 3 SCR
172 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 110
relied on
Para 8
[2009] 4 SCR 788
relied on
Para 8
[2000] 3 SCR 172
relied on
Para 8
INHERENT JURISDICTION :  Contempt Petition (C) Nos.726-
728 of 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.10394-10396 of 2011.
Petition filed for Contempt of this Court Order dated 17.08.2015,
29.08.2016 and 05.01.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.10394-10396 of 2011 in
Contempt Petition (C) No.726-728 of 2015 and I.A. Nos.28-30 of 2016.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Advs., Gautam
Narayan, Ashok Kumar Jain, Pankaj Jain, Mrs. Meenakshi Jain, Bijoy
Kumar Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Manish Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. These contempt petitions are filed under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution
of India and Rule 3(C) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt
M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. SRI BRIJESH
MEHROTRA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
of the Supreme Court, 1975, alleging that respondents have wilfully and
deliberately violated directions issued by this Court in the order dated
17.08.2015, 29.08.2016 and 05.01.2017 passed in Civil Appeal
Nos.10394-10396 of 2011 and in Contempt Petition(C)Nos.726-728 of
2015 and I.A.Nos.28-30 of 2016 in the said contempt petitions.
2. The land admeasuring 29.38 acres belonging to the petitioner
situated at Bhagalpur, Bihar was acquired under provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘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 under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. A
notification to that effect was issued under Indian Forest Act on
04.09.1990.
2(a). 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. When the subsequent notification
was issued, same was challenged before the High Court. The said writ
petition was allowed in the year 1998. In the counter affidavit filed before
High Court, respondents have taken 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 respondent-State 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 27.09.2006, purportedly pursuant to 1981
notification. All the three writ petitions were heard together by the High
Court. When the High Court has held, notwithstanding the delay in passing
the award, possession of the land as well as title vested in the respondent-
State, matters have come to this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10394-10396
of 2011. By order dated 17.08.2015, 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 (for short ‘2013 Act’), will apply as much as State has not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
729
progressed beyond making a declaration under Section 6 of the Act,
pursuant to subsequent notification. The land acquisition proceedings
were declared lapsed by this Court, and the respondent-State 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.
3. 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.726-728 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, vide order dated 29.08.2016. The said order reads as under :
“It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the possession of the land in question has
already been taken by the authorities.
If that is so, we are sure that the petitioner shall be paid the amount
of compensation in accordance with law i.e. as per the provisions
of Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
In these circumstances, the contempt petition does not survive
and therefore, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw the same.
Permission is granted and the contempt petitions are disposed of
as withdrawn.”
The
respondent-State has subsequently filed I.A.Nos.28-30 of
2016 seeking correction of the order dated 29.08.2016, the said IAs
were dismissed by order dated 05.01.2017.
4.We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Gopal
Sankarnarayanan, learned senior advocates appearing for the petitioner
and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior advocate for the respondents.
5. Mainly it is the contention of the learned senior counsels for the
petitioner that, respondents have violated deliberately and wilfully, the
series of directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that at first instance
land was acquired by invoking urgency clause, and inspite of directions
for payment of compensation by following the provisions under Section
40 of the 2013 Act, respondents have passed the award without adhering
M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. SRI BRIJESH
MEHROTRA & ORS. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
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 inspite of the
same, contrary to various directions issued by this Court, land is treated
as agricultural forest land, a concept unknown to law. It is submitted that
when the applications were filed for correction of the order dated
29.08.2016, the said 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
731
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.1, 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.2 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.3 this Court has held that a decree
obtained under Land Acquisition Act, is an executable decree and no
contempt can be maintained for non-compliance 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 court’s 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.
1 (1996) 6 SCC 291
2 (2009) 5 SCC 339
3 (2000) 4 SCC 400
M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. SRI BRIJESH
MEHROTRA & ORS. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
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. For the aforesaid reasons
these contempt petitions are dismissed, with no order as to costs. We
make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion either on the
categorization of the
land or on the determination of market value in the
award dated 12.11.2020. All the issues are left open.
Divya Pandey
Petitions dismissed.