2021 INSC 00838 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.726­728 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10394­10396 OF 2011 M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull …..Petitioner Versus Sri Brijesh Mehrotra & Ors.     …..Respondents J U D G M E N T 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   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.726­728 of 2015 and I.A.Nos.28­30 of 2016 in the said contempt petitions. 1 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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 2 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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 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   respondent­State,   matters   have   come   to   this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10394­10396 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 progressed beyond making  a declaration under 3 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 Section   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. 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.  4 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 Permission   is   granted   and   the   contempt   petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.” 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. 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 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 5 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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 6 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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.10394­10396   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,   respondent­State   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 7 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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 8 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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 1 (1996) 6 SCC 291 2 (2009) 5 SCC 339 3 (2000) 4 SCC 400 9 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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. 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 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.     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 10 C.P(C).Nos.726-728 of 2017 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.  ……………………………J. [R. Subhash Reddy] ……………………………J. [Hrishikesh Roy] New Delhi. December 14, 2021. 11