2007 (3) TMI 744 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether all the respondents had deliberately and with mala fide motive committed contempt of our order dated 15.10.2004?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Supreme Court's directions regarding non-agricultural permission and tax collection.
2. Incorrect notification of land as a water body by the State Government.
3. Deliberate and willful disobedience of Supreme Court's orders by government officials.
4. Refusal to grant non-agricultural permission for specific survey numbers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with Supreme Court's Directions:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 15.10.2004, directed the Collector, Bhavnagar to grant non-agricultural permission for 76 acres 36 guntas of land in Survey No. 469/1, Bhavnagar District, after collecting the non-agricultural tax applicable at the time of the application. The Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation was also directed to consider the application for sanction within four weeks. Additionally, the court directed the collection of non-agricultural permission charges and conversion charges for lands in Survey Nos. 470/1, 471/2, 471/3, and 472 as prevalent in 1981.

2. Incorrect Notification of Land as a Water Body:
The State Government issued a notification declaring lands in RS Nos. 471/2 and 472 as a water body, allegedly in compliance with a High Court order. However, the High Court's order only mandated notification of water bodies vested in the State or local authorities, not private land. This action was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment and directions.

3. Deliberate and Willful Disobedience by Government Officials:
Despite the Supreme Court's clear and binding directions, the government officials, including the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department and the Collector, Bhavnagar, failed to comply. The Collector refused to follow the judgment for survey No. 472 and also for 80 acres of survey No. 471/2. The Supreme Court noted that judgments are binding under Article 142 of the Constitution, and any attempt to ignore them undermines the authority of the Court.

4. Refusal to Grant Non-agricultural Permission:
The petitioners filed a contempt petition seeking enforcement of the Supreme Court's directions for non-agricultural permission. The respondents, instead of complying, raised new pleas and contentions regarding survey Nos. 471/2 and 472. The Supreme Court reiterated that the issues concerning these lands had been conclusively decided in favor of the petitioners in previous litigations and could not be reopened.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Supreme Court found the respondents guilty of willful and deliberate contempt of its order dated 15.10.2004. The Court directed the Revenue Department and the Collector, Bhavnagar, to issue permission for residential use for the specified survey numbers. The Court emphasized that judgments must be obeyed punctually and warned the officials against future violations. The contempt petition was allowed, and the respondents were given four weeks to comply with the Court's directions.