Explore the detailed legal analysis of a case involving land acquisition and contempt proceedings. The court’s examination of compliance with orders, available remedies, and the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 provides valuable insights into the legal framework surrounding such matters. Stay tuned to unravel the complexities of this significant legal judgment.
Facts
- Writ petition allowed in 1998 for protecting and preserving the forest.
- Land acquisition proceedings declared lapsed, State directed to initiate fresh proceedings within six weeks.
- Contempt petitions filed under Contempt of Courts Act for violation of court orders in Civil Appeal and Contempt Petition cases.
- Possession of land taken by authorities, petitioner entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
- Challenges and appeals around land acquisition proceedings, awards, and notifications under various Acts including the 1981 notification.
- Multiple writ petitions and challenges related to the acquisition, possession, and protection of the forest land.
- Land subsequently declared as protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, notifications issued accordingly.
- Order dated 17.08.2015 quashed the acquisition proceedings due to lapsed proceedings.
- Ruling based on the failure to pass award within the prescribed period in the Act.
- Respondent-State directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or take other legal actions.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Arbitration Order Quashed
Arguments
- Learned senior counsels for the petitioner argue that respondents violated court directions wilfully.
- Contempt petition requested to be withdrawn as it does not survive due to violations by respondents.
- Permission granted to withdraw contempt petition as it does not survive.
- Counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw contempt petition, which is granted.
- Reference made to the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & Ors. where fresh cause of action was acknowledged after government order based on court directions.
- Counsel for respondents relies on the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & Ors. to support their argument.
- Fresh notification issued as per court’s directions declared as lapsed.
- Petitioner can seek reference to competent authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act if not accepted the award.
- Further remedy available to High Court under Section 74.
- Land initially acquired under urgency clause, compensation not paid as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act.
- Petitioner’s land used for office and residential buildings, treated as agricultural forest land.
- Applications for correction of order dismissed and benefits not granted.
Also Read: Land Dispute: Conviction Under Section 304(ii) IPC
Analysis
- Petitioner is not availing remedy under contempt, but trying to expand court directions.
- No violation of court directions occurred, let alone wilful violation.
- Respondents did not grant benefits under Section 40 of the 2013 Act in the latest notification under Section 11.
- A fresh notification was issued on 14.02.2020 following the court’s order and an award was passed on 12.11.2020.
- Petitioner filed a claim petition in the award inquiry on 08.06.2020.
- Respondents suggest availing remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act if aggrieved by compensation determination.
- Review petition dismissed on 17.08.2015; a curative petition is pending.
- Court clarified not expressing opinion on land nature, leaving all issues open.
- Fresh notification issued on 14.11.2015 and another on 14.02.2020 following court orders.
- Notification under Section 11 without invoking urgency clause lead to no benefits as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act.
- Award inquiry conducted following the notification on 14.02.2020.
- Discretion given to the court in dealing with Contempt of Courts Act is for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of law.
- An aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise jurisdiction in contempt cases.
- Notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act and the award passed by respondents show no deliberate violation of court directions.
- In Delhi Development Authority v. Mahender Singh & Anr., it was noted that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code with detailed procedures that should be adhered to.
- A decree obtained under the Land Acquisition Act is considered executable, and contempt cannot be maintained for non-compliance with it.
- Contempt should not be used abundantly or misused, as per the judgment in R.N. Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors.
- Petitioner is allowed to pursue remedies available in law
- No contempt found as alleged by the respondents
Also Read: Analyzing Legal Defects in Arbitral Awards
Decision
- Contempt petitions dismissed
- No order as to costs
Case Title: M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL Vs. SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA AND ORS. (2021 INSC 889)
Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-000726-000728 / 2017
