9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1854 - SC - Indian LawsContempt jurisdiction - whether the learned Single Judge was right in travelling beyond the four corners of the order in W.P. No. 3874 of 2016 dated 03.02.2016 and directing the Appellant-Board to pay the compensation at the rate of ₹ 600/- per sq. ft.? - HELD THAT - The Single Judge fell in error in entertaining the contempt petition and further erred in directing the TWAD Board to pay compensation at the rate of ₹ 600/- per sq. ft. which works out to more than ₹ 4,00,00,000/-. It is public money and having implications on the public exchequer, the public money cannot be allowed to be taken away by an individual by fling contempt petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities. The order passed by the learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench is ex-facie erroneous and liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of fair and reasonable compensation for the land acquired by the Appellant-TWAD Board. 2. Jurisdiction of the court in contempt proceedings. 3. Compliance with the High Court’s order regarding compensation. 4. Validity of the compensation amount fixed by the District Collector and subsequent orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Compensation: The primary issue revolves around the compensation for the land acquired by the Appellant-TWAD Board in 1991 with the consent of the first Respondent. Initially, the District Collector fixed the land value at ?200 per sq. ft. based on the guideline value as of 01.04.2012. This amount, along with interest, totaled ?1,11,80,723, which was paid to the first Respondent under protest. The first Respondent did not legally challenge this compensation but instead filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the High Court's order for fair and reasonable compensation. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court in Contempt Proceedings: The court examined whether the learned Single Judge was correct in using contempt jurisdiction to direct the Appellant-Board to pay compensation at ?600 per sq. ft., which was beyond the original order in Writ Petition No. 3874 of 2016. The judgment emphasized that in contempt jurisdiction, the court must confine itself to the explicit directions of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. The Supreme Court referenced previous rulings, including *Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran*, to underline that the court should not extend its directions beyond the scope of the original order. 3. Compliance with the High Court’s Order: The High Court's order dated 03.02.2016 directed the authorities to ensure fair and reasonable compensation. The Appellant-Board and other officials acted swiftly by requesting the District Collector to fix the land value, which was done after a detailed enquiry. The Supreme Court noted that there was no willful disobedience or non-compliance of the High Court's order as the compensation was fixed and paid according to the guideline value of ?200 per sq. ft. The first Respondent's acceptance of the amount under protest did not constitute a legal challenge to the fixed compensation. 4. Validity of the Compensation Amount Fixed by the District Collector and Subsequent Orders: The District Collector initially fixed the land value at ?200 per sq. ft. based on the 2012 guideline value. However, during the contempt proceedings, the learned Single Judge directed payment at ?600 per sq. ft., which was beyond the scope of the original writ order. The Supreme Court found that the order to pay ?600 per sq. ft. was arbitrary and unsustainable, especially since the first Respondent did not legally challenge the initial compensation. The court also highlighted that the proceedings of the District Collector fixing the land value at ?500 per sq. ft. on 30.11.2016 were influenced by the fear of contempt, which was improper and quashed. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, ruling that the Appellant-Board had complied with the High Court's directive by paying the compensation fixed at ?200 per sq. ft. The court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction should not be used to extend or modify the original order and that public money should not be unduly expended through contempt proceedings. The appeal by the Appellant-Board was allowed.
|
