2008 (3) TMI 731 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt proceeding - Requisition for Acquisition of land - declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Grant sanction of plans for construction of buildings - Society deposited the entire amount of compensation - clerical or typographical error has crept in the judgment of the High Court - HELD THAT - Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) is a statutory authority. It has been created by a statute. It was responsible for planned development of the city. For the said purpose it was under a statutory obligation to grant sanction of plans for construction of buildings. If somebody has made constructions without obtaining any sanction he must face the consequences therefor. Parameters of the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1970 are well-settled. While dealing with such an application the court is concerned primarily with (i) whether the order passed by it has attained finality or not; (ii)whether the same is complied with or not. While exercising the said jurisdiction this court does not intend to reopen the issues which could have been raised in the original proceeding nor shall it embark upon other questions including the plea of equities which could fall for consideration only in the original proceedings. The court is not concerned with as to whether the original order was right or wrong. The court must not take a different view or traverse beyond the same. It cannot ordinarily give an additional direction or delete a direction issued. In short it will not do anything which would amount to exercise of its review jurisdiction. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 129 of the Constitution of India must strive to give effect to the directions issued by this Court. When the claim of the parties had been adjudicated upon and has attained finality it is not open for any party to go behind the said orders and seek to take away and/ or truncate the effect thereof. T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan 1995 (8) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT . So far as submission of Mr. Srivastava that a clerical or typographical error has crept in the judgment of the Patna High Court is concerned we are of the opinion that it is not for this court to direct any correction therein. The functions of the PRDA are now being carried out by Patna Municipal Corporation. The statutory authority thus keeping in view the purport and object for which it has been created in our opinion must take appropriate action in accordance with law. As indicated PRDA the predecessor of Patna Municipal Corporation has given assurance before this Court. We hope it shall implement the same as expeditiously as possible. The petition is disposed of accordingly with the directions and observations.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Compliance with the Supreme Court's previous orders regarding land acquisition.
2. Validity of land acquisition proceedings and compensation.
3. Alleged illegal constructions on acquired land.
4. Role and responsibilities of Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) and Patna Municipal Corporation.
5. Contempt of court and enforcement of court orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with the Supreme Court's Previous Orders:

The contempt proceeding stems from a long-standing dispute over land acquisition initiated in 1973 by a cooperative society. The Supreme Court had previously directed individualized justice in the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar, remitting the matter to the High Court to consider each writ petitioner's claim individually. The High Court subsequently ordered the release of 12.9603 acres of land and directed the District Magistrate to identify and deliver possession to the petitioner society. Despite these directives, compliance issues persisted, leading to further appeals and orders from the Supreme Court, including the release of additional land and directives for the PRDA to ensure lawful constructions.

2. Validity of Land Acquisition Proceedings and Compensation:

The land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, leading to the acquisition of 59.94 acres of land for the petitioner's society. The High Court initially quashed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, but the Supreme Court later clarified that Part VII of the Act applied to cooperative societies, thus upholding the proceedings. The petitioner society had deposited the entire compensation amount, and the Supreme Court emphasized that the validity of the proceedings and the compensation awarded could not be questioned at this stage.

3. Alleged Illegal Constructions on Acquired Land:

Several illegal constructions emerged on portions of the acquired land, complicating the enforcement of court orders. The Supreme Court directed that constructions made without necessary permissions must face legal consequences. The PRDA was tasked with ensuring that future constructions comply with planned development and statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of ecological protection and sustainable development.

4. Role and Responsibilities of PRDA and Patna Municipal Corporation:

The PRDA, a statutory authority responsible for planned development, was directed to comply with the Supreme Court's orders regarding the acquired land. Despite not being a party to the appeal, the PRDA was called upon to act against illegal constructions and ensure lawful development. The Supreme Court noted the PRDA's assurance to comply and later transferred its responsibilities to the Patna Municipal Corporation, urging swift and appropriate action.

5. Contempt of Court and Enforcement of Court Orders:

The Supreme Court underscored the well-settled parameters of contempt jurisdiction, focusing on whether its orders had attained finality and were complied with. The court emphasized that it would not reopen original issues or entertain new pleas of equity, aiming instead to enforce its previous directives. The court highlighted the importance of adherence to its orders and the consequences of non-compliance, referencing precedents that stress the finality and enforceability of judicial decisions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court disposed of the petition with specific directions for compliance, including potential rectification of clerical errors by the Patna High Court and the enforcement of lawful development by the Patna Municipal Corporation. The judgment reaffirmed the principles of sustainable development, statutory compliance, and the finality of judicial orders, ensuring that the petitioner society receives the land it is entitled to while addressing illegal constructions and planned development.