In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to
the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.
Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel
beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been
floated, in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and
others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others (2014) 3 SCC
373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held as under:-
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to
punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both
under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb
the liberty of the individual charged with commission of
contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in
the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and
caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of selfdetermination
of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in
respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not,
therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of
the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea
of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that
while considering a contempt plea the power available to the
Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has
been already expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such
an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear
to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar,
namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5
SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004) 13 SCC
610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society
Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India v.
Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613.” [underlining added]
Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear 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 Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to
more than Rs.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 filing contempt
petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1510 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30317 of 2017)
ER. K. ARUMUGAM Vs V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.
Dated:February 06, 2019
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.08.2017
passed by the High Court of Madras in Contempt Appeal No.2 of
2017 affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
13.02.2017 in and by which the appellant-TWAD Board was
directed to pay Rs.600/- per sq. ft. to the first respondent for the
land which the appellant-Board entered possession in 1991 with
the consent of the first respondent.
3. During the year 1991-1992, land to an extent of 86.5 cents
in Survey No.271/2A 5E – “Dry Land” in Walajabad Village was
entered upon by the appellant-Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board (TWAD Board) with the consent of the first
respondent-land owner for the construction of Head works and
Staff quarters. In the year 1993, the appellant-Board constructed
the Head works for supply of drinking water and residential Staff
quarters. Accepting the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kancheepuram made in the year 1991, by an order dated
30.03.2015, the District Collector, Kancheepuram fixed the value
of the land at the rate of Rs.260/- per cent and the total value of
the land was arrived at Rs.22,490/-. Giving incentive of 12% for
every year up to 2012, the value of the land was fixed at
Rs.2,43,001/-. A demand draft of Rs.2,43,001/- had been sent to
the first respondent by the appellant-Board vide its letter dated
14.05.2015 which the first respondent refused to receive and the
same was returned.
4. On 31.01.2016, the first respondent filed Writ Petition
No.3874 of 2016 and on the third day of filing of the petition i.e. on
03.02.2016, the High Court disposed of the said writ petition with
direction to the appellant-Board to submit a report to the District
Collector and to ensure that a fair and reasonable compensation
be sanctioned to the first respondent at an early date not later
than two months. The said order reads as under:-
“6. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the 3rd
respondent to submit his report/response to the 4th respondent
as requested in the letter of the 4th respondent dated
23.09.2015, within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such shall place
appropriate proposal for the consideration of the 2nd respondent
within a period of three weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the 2nd
respondent shall consider the matter and ensure that fair and
reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the petitioner and
paid at the earliest, not later than two months from the date on
which the proposal is submitted by the 4th respondent. The
authorities are well advised to adhere to the time schedule fixed
by this Court, failing which, it would amount to disobedience of
the order, warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act.”
5. In compliance of the above direction, the Managing Director
of the appellant-Board had sent a letter dated 03.03.2016 to the
District Collector, Kancheepuram stating that the District Collector,
Kancheepuram is the authority to fix the land value and requested
him to fix a fair and reasonable value of the land as ordered by the
High Court. A State Level Committee meeting attended by High
level Officers had been convened on 25.04.2016. As seen from the
Minutes of the Meeting, the entire matter has been thoroughly
discussed and considered. It was decided in the said meeting that
the case neither comes under the ambit of the Land Acquisition Act
nor under ‘Private Negotiation’ and only the District Collector is
fully competent to fix the value of the land in such cases.
Accordingly, it was decided to remit the matter to the District
Collector to determine the value of the land and communicate the
same to the Managing Director, TWAD Board so that a fair and
reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first respondent and
to ensure compliance of the order of the High Court.
6. The District Collector accordingly held a detailed enquiry and
examined various aspects of the matter and also took into
consideration the prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012.
After elaborate consideration, the District Collector vide proceeding
3
dated 23.05.2016 fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per
sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the said
order reads as under:-
“7. During the Private Negotiation meeting conducted on
09.04.2012, it was decided to for value as per the prevailing
guideline value as on 01.04.2012. The Sub-Registrar, Walajabad
recommended and reported that the guideline value was at the
rate Rs.200/- per sq. ft. for the land in S.No.271/2A5E in his
letter no.114/2012, dt. 16.04.2012. Accordingly, the District
Collector, Kancheepuram in his proceedings dt. 19.05.2012 has
fixed the land value at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. which was the
guideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the total value of the land
was arrived at Rs.75,42,800/-.”
The District Collector also observed that the land value at Rs.200/-
per sq. ft. is fixed and the same may be paid with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from 19.05.2012 till date of payment. The
District Collector opined that land value fixed at Rs.200/- per sq. ft.
as on 01.04.2012 is a fair and reasonable value considering the
classification of the land at the time when Board entered upon the
land. Based on the land value fixed by the District Collector,
calculating the amount at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. along with
interest, TWAD Board calculated the total amount of compensation
at Rs.1,11,80,723/- as under:-
Land area …. 86 ½ cent (or)
37714 Sq. ft.
Cost of land at the rate of
Rs.200/- per sq. ft.
…. Rs.75,42,800/-
Interest @ the rate of 12% per
annum from 19.05.2012 to
25.05.2016 - 4 years and 7
days
…. Rs.36,37,923/-
Total …. Rs.1,11,80,723/-
4
The first respondent received the said amount of Rs.1,11,80,723/-
with protest on 31.05.2016 and issued a receipt for the said
amount.
7. The first respondent did not challenge the rate fixed by the
District Collector at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. in a manner known to law.
On the other hand, the first respondent filed Contempt Petition
No.2626 of 2016 in W.P. No.3874 of 2016 on 28.09.2016 alleging
disobedience of the order passed by the High Court on 03.02.2016.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Board
submitted that when the contempt petition came up before the
learned Single Judge on 25.11.2016, though no orders were
passed, some instructions appeared to have been given to the
TWAD Board. It was submitted that apprehending that she might
be hauled up for contempt of court, the District Collector vide order
dated 30.11.2016 fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs.500/-
per sq. ft. When the contempt petition came up for hearing on
13.02.2017, going beyond the order passed in Writ Petition
No.3874/2016, the learned Single Judge fixed the value of the land
at Rs.600/- per sq. ft and directed the balance amount be paid to
the first respondent at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. ft. The order
passed by the High Court reads as under:-
“6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is inclined to fix a reasonable amount of compensation
and accordingly, the same is fixed at Rs.600/- per sq. ft. has
been paid on 25.05.2016 together with interest, the balance
amount payable per square feet is Rs.400/-. However, the
interest for the differential amount shall be calculated only at
5
the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. ft. from 19.05.2012 till 25.05.2016.
The above direction shall be complied with by the respondents
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. On receipt of the amount, the erstwhile owner shall
execute a sale deed in favour of the TWAD Board and the
expenses be borne by the TWAD Boad……..”
8. Being aggrieved by the above order passed in the contempt
proceedings, the appellant-Board preferred appeal before the
Division Bench. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the
impugned order.
9. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant-Board and learned senior counsel for the first respondent
and perused the impugned order and materials on record.
10. The question falling for consideration in this appeal is, in
exercise of contempt 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 Rs.600/- per sq. ft.
11. In Writ Petition No.3874/2016, the High Court passed the
order dated 03.02.2016 with direction to the authorities to ensure
a fair and reasonable compensation be sanctioned to the first
respondent and paid at the earliest. Immediately after the order
of the High Court, the Managing Director, TWAD Board wrote a
letter dated 03.03.2016 requesting the District Collector,
Kancheepuram to fix a fair and reasonable value of the land.
Thereafter, the State Level Committee meeting attended by the
6
High Level Officers had been convened and the matter was
considered and discussed at length. The State High Level
Committee felt that the case would neither fall under the ambit of
Land Acquisition Act nor under ‘Private Negotiation’ and therefore,
the Committee felt that it has no role to play and that the District
Collector is competent to fix the value of the land and the State
Level Committee remitted the matter to the District Collector to fix
the value of the land and communicate the value determined by
him to the Managing Director, TWAD Board so that a fair and
reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first respondent
within the time limit fixed by the High Court in the order passed in
Writ Petition No.3874/2016.
12. A party can be proceeded for disobedience of the order of
the court only when there is willful disobedience and noncompliance
of the order passed by the court. On perusal of the
order dated 03.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.3874/2016, it is
seen that in the said order, court has only directed the authorities
to ensure fair and reasonable compensation be sanctioned to the
first respondent and be paid at the earliest. The officers quickly
acted in order to comply with the direction of the High Court.
When the direction was only to consider the case of the first
respondent for ensuring fair and reasonable compensation and
having regard to the swift action taken by the appellant and other
officials, in our view, there was no disobedience of the order of the
7
court, much less wilful disobedience to invoke contempt
jurisdiction.
13. After the State Level Committee remitted the matter to the
District Collector, the District Collector conducted a detailed
enquiry and took into consideration the prevailing guideline value
as on 01.04.2012. After examining the report of the Sub-Registrar,
Walajabad and taking into consideration the guideline value, by
proceeding dated 23.05.2016 the District Collector fixed the land
value at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on
01.04.2012. As pointed out earlier, the total value of the land was
arrived at Rs.75,42,800/- and the interest at the rate of 12%
totalling Rs.1,11,80,723/- was paid to the first respondent which
the first respondent received under protest. In compliance of the
order of the High Court, the District Collector passed the order
fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on
01.04.2012 (though the land came to be in occupation of TWAD
Board way back in 1991). The first respondent has not challenged
the said compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.200/- sq. ft. as on
01.04.2012 in the manner known to law. In compliance of the
order of the High Court, when the amount has been paid to the
first respondent, in our considered view, there was no
disobedience or non-compliance of the order of the court to
entertain the contempt petition.
8
14. In Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retired) (2008) 14
SCC 392, the Supreme Court held that whether contempt has been
committed or not is not a matter of mechanical application of
mind. In a given case, it has to be tested having regard to the
subject matter of the proceeding in which it is made and the nexus
between the alleged contumacious act. In the Writ Petition
No.3874/2016, the High Court only directed TWAD Board and its
officials to ensure just and reasonable compensation be paid to the
first respondent which has been duly complied with by the Board
by paying the compensation fixing the land value at the rate of
Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 as per guideline value. In
compliance with the order passed by the High Court, when the
compensation has been paid to the first respondent, there was no
question of disobedience of the order of the court to maintain the
contempt petition. Without appreciating that the order of the High
Court has been duly complied with, the learned Single Judge erred
in entertaining the contempt petition. Apart from entertaining the
contempt petition, the learned Single Judge further fell in error in
issuing positive direction to the authorities to pay further
compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which, in our
considered view, is arbitrary and unsustainable.
15. The learned senior counsel Mr. Ramamoorthy appearing for
the Board submitted that when the contempt petition came up for
hearing on 25.11.2016, the learned Single Judge issued oral
9
instructions to the TWAD Board and the appellant Board was
compelled to take further steps in fixing the higher land value. It
is stated that though no orders were passed by the learned Single
Judge on 25.11.2016, oral directions were issued by the learned
Single Judge. The same is reflected in the proceeding of the
District Collector dated 30.11.2016 as seen from the following:-
“….Thereafter, the land owner filed the contempt of court
petition in No.2626/2016 before the Chennai High Court. When
the aforesaid case was on trial, on 25.11.2016, as per the
instructions given by the honourable judge, today (30.11.2016)
the Superintending Engineer of the TWAD Board and the District
Registrar Kanchipuram, in the meeting held with them, it is
informed to the land owner as follows…..”
Though much reliance was placed upon the proceedings of the
District Collector dated 30.11.2016, we are constrained to observe
that the said proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016
fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. as on
30.11.2016 was passed under the fear of contempt of court which,
in our view, is liable to be quashed. In any event, when the entry
into land was way back in 1990-91, the first respondent cannot
claim that compensation be paid to him on the value of the land
fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016.
16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent
placed reliance upon the statement of the learned Additional
Advocate General who represented the Board in the Contempt
Petition No.2626/2016 who has stated “….that the court should
confirm itself to order compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq.
ft.” This contention does not merit acceptance. Be it noted that
10
when the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge on
13.02.2017, no affidavit has been filed by any responsible officer
that the compensation may be paid to the first respondent at the
rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. Since we are quashing the order of the
District Collector dated 30.11.2016, in our considered view, the
first respondent cannot fall back upon statement of the learned
Additional Advocate General made in the court. The respondent
cannot take advantage of such oral concession made by the
learned Additional Advocate General.
17. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to
the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.
Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel
beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been
floated, in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and
others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others (2014) 3 SCC
373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held as under:-
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to
punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both
under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb
the liberty of the individual charged with commission of
contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in
the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and
caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of selfdetermination
of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in
respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not,
therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of
the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea
of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that
while considering a contempt plea the power available to the
Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has
been already expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such
an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear
to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar,
namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5
SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004) 13 SCC
610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society
Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India v.
Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613.” [underlining added]
Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear 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 Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to
more than Rs.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 filing 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.
18. In the result, the impugned order of the Division Bench in
Contempt Petition No.2/2017 and the order of the learned Single
Judge in Contempt Petition No.2626/2016 are set aside and this
appeal is allowed.
..……………………….J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
…...………………………..J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi;
February 06, 2019
Print Page
the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.
Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel
beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been
floated, in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and
others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others (2014) 3 SCC
373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held as under:-
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to
punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both
under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb
the liberty of the individual charged with commission of
contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in
the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and
caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of selfdetermination
of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in
respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not,
therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of
the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea
of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that
while considering a contempt plea the power available to the
Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has
been already expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such
an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear
to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar,
namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5
SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004) 13 SCC
610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society
Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India v.
Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613.” [underlining added]
Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear 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 Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to
more than Rs.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 filing contempt
petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1510 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30317 of 2017)
ER. K. ARUMUGAM Vs V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.
Dated:February 06, 2019
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.08.2017
passed by the High Court of Madras in Contempt Appeal No.2 of
2017 affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
13.02.2017 in and by which the appellant-TWAD Board was
directed to pay Rs.600/- per sq. ft. to the first respondent for the
land which the appellant-Board entered possession in 1991 with
the consent of the first respondent.
3. During the year 1991-1992, land to an extent of 86.5 cents
in Survey No.271/2A 5E – “Dry Land” in Walajabad Village was
entered upon by the appellant-Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board (TWAD Board) with the consent of the first
respondent-land owner for the construction of Head works and
Staff quarters. In the year 1993, the appellant-Board constructed
the Head works for supply of drinking water and residential Staff
quarters. Accepting the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kancheepuram made in the year 1991, by an order dated
30.03.2015, the District Collector, Kancheepuram fixed the value
of the land at the rate of Rs.260/- per cent and the total value of
the land was arrived at Rs.22,490/-. Giving incentive of 12% for
every year up to 2012, the value of the land was fixed at
Rs.2,43,001/-. A demand draft of Rs.2,43,001/- had been sent to
the first respondent by the appellant-Board vide its letter dated
14.05.2015 which the first respondent refused to receive and the
same was returned.
4. On 31.01.2016, the first respondent filed Writ Petition
No.3874 of 2016 and on the third day of filing of the petition i.e. on
03.02.2016, the High Court disposed of the said writ petition with
direction to the appellant-Board to submit a report to the District
Collector and to ensure that a fair and reasonable compensation
be sanctioned to the first respondent at an early date not later
than two months. The said order reads as under:-
“6. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the 3rd
respondent to submit his report/response to the 4th respondent
as requested in the letter of the 4th respondent dated
23.09.2015, within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such shall place
appropriate proposal for the consideration of the 2nd respondent
within a period of three weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the 2nd
respondent shall consider the matter and ensure that fair and
reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the petitioner and
paid at the earliest, not later than two months from the date on
which the proposal is submitted by the 4th respondent. The
authorities are well advised to adhere to the time schedule fixed
by this Court, failing which, it would amount to disobedience of
the order, warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act.”
5. In compliance of the above direction, the Managing Director
of the appellant-Board had sent a letter dated 03.03.2016 to the
District Collector, Kancheepuram stating that the District Collector,
Kancheepuram is the authority to fix the land value and requested
him to fix a fair and reasonable value of the land as ordered by the
High Court. A State Level Committee meeting attended by High
level Officers had been convened on 25.04.2016. As seen from the
Minutes of the Meeting, the entire matter has been thoroughly
discussed and considered. It was decided in the said meeting that
the case neither comes under the ambit of the Land Acquisition Act
nor under ‘Private Negotiation’ and only the District Collector is
fully competent to fix the value of the land in such cases.
Accordingly, it was decided to remit the matter to the District
Collector to determine the value of the land and communicate the
same to the Managing Director, TWAD Board so that a fair and
reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first respondent and
to ensure compliance of the order of the High Court.
6. The District Collector accordingly held a detailed enquiry and
examined various aspects of the matter and also took into
consideration the prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012.
After elaborate consideration, the District Collector vide proceeding
3
dated 23.05.2016 fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per
sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the said
order reads as under:-
“7. During the Private Negotiation meeting conducted on
09.04.2012, it was decided to for value as per the prevailing
guideline value as on 01.04.2012. The Sub-Registrar, Walajabad
recommended and reported that the guideline value was at the
rate Rs.200/- per sq. ft. for the land in S.No.271/2A5E in his
letter no.114/2012, dt. 16.04.2012. Accordingly, the District
Collector, Kancheepuram in his proceedings dt. 19.05.2012 has
fixed the land value at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. which was the
guideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the total value of the land
was arrived at Rs.75,42,800/-.”
The District Collector also observed that the land value at Rs.200/-
per sq. ft. is fixed and the same may be paid with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from 19.05.2012 till date of payment. The
District Collector opined that land value fixed at Rs.200/- per sq. ft.
as on 01.04.2012 is a fair and reasonable value considering the
classification of the land at the time when Board entered upon the
land. Based on the land value fixed by the District Collector,
calculating the amount at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. along with
interest, TWAD Board calculated the total amount of compensation
at Rs.1,11,80,723/- as under:-
Land area …. 86 ½ cent (or)
37714 Sq. ft.
Cost of land at the rate of
Rs.200/- per sq. ft.
…. Rs.75,42,800/-
Interest @ the rate of 12% per
annum from 19.05.2012 to
25.05.2016 - 4 years and 7
days
…. Rs.36,37,923/-
Total …. Rs.1,11,80,723/-
4
The first respondent received the said amount of Rs.1,11,80,723/-
with protest on 31.05.2016 and issued a receipt for the said
amount.
7. The first respondent did not challenge the rate fixed by the
District Collector at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. in a manner known to law.
On the other hand, the first respondent filed Contempt Petition
No.2626 of 2016 in W.P. No.3874 of 2016 on 28.09.2016 alleging
disobedience of the order passed by the High Court on 03.02.2016.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Board
submitted that when the contempt petition came up before the
learned Single Judge on 25.11.2016, though no orders were
passed, some instructions appeared to have been given to the
TWAD Board. It was submitted that apprehending that she might
be hauled up for contempt of court, the District Collector vide order
dated 30.11.2016 fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs.500/-
per sq. ft. When the contempt petition came up for hearing on
13.02.2017, going beyond the order passed in Writ Petition
No.3874/2016, the learned Single Judge fixed the value of the land
at Rs.600/- per sq. ft and directed the balance amount be paid to
the first respondent at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. ft. The order
passed by the High Court reads as under:-
“6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is inclined to fix a reasonable amount of compensation
and accordingly, the same is fixed at Rs.600/- per sq. ft. has
been paid on 25.05.2016 together with interest, the balance
amount payable per square feet is Rs.400/-. However, the
interest for the differential amount shall be calculated only at
5
the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. ft. from 19.05.2012 till 25.05.2016.
The above direction shall be complied with by the respondents
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. On receipt of the amount, the erstwhile owner shall
execute a sale deed in favour of the TWAD Board and the
expenses be borne by the TWAD Boad……..”
8. Being aggrieved by the above order passed in the contempt
proceedings, the appellant-Board preferred appeal before the
Division Bench. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the
impugned order.
9. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant-Board and learned senior counsel for the first respondent
and perused the impugned order and materials on record.
10. The question falling for consideration in this appeal is, in
exercise of contempt 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 Rs.600/- per sq. ft.
11. In Writ Petition No.3874/2016, the High Court passed the
order dated 03.02.2016 with direction to the authorities to ensure
a fair and reasonable compensation be sanctioned to the first
respondent and paid at the earliest. Immediately after the order
of the High Court, the Managing Director, TWAD Board wrote a
letter dated 03.03.2016 requesting the District Collector,
Kancheepuram to fix a fair and reasonable value of the land.
Thereafter, the State Level Committee meeting attended by the
6
High Level Officers had been convened and the matter was
considered and discussed at length. The State High Level
Committee felt that the case would neither fall under the ambit of
Land Acquisition Act nor under ‘Private Negotiation’ and therefore,
the Committee felt that it has no role to play and that the District
Collector is competent to fix the value of the land and the State
Level Committee remitted the matter to the District Collector to fix
the value of the land and communicate the value determined by
him to the Managing Director, TWAD Board so that a fair and
reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first respondent
within the time limit fixed by the High Court in the order passed in
Writ Petition No.3874/2016.
12. A party can be proceeded for disobedience of the order of
the court only when there is willful disobedience and noncompliance
of the order passed by the court. On perusal of the
order dated 03.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.3874/2016, it is
seen that in the said order, court has only directed the authorities
to ensure fair and reasonable compensation be sanctioned to the
first respondent and be paid at the earliest. The officers quickly
acted in order to comply with the direction of the High Court.
When the direction was only to consider the case of the first
respondent for ensuring fair and reasonable compensation and
having regard to the swift action taken by the appellant and other
officials, in our view, there was no disobedience of the order of the
7
court, much less wilful disobedience to invoke contempt
jurisdiction.
13. After the State Level Committee remitted the matter to the
District Collector, the District Collector conducted a detailed
enquiry and took into consideration the prevailing guideline value
as on 01.04.2012. After examining the report of the Sub-Registrar,
Walajabad and taking into consideration the guideline value, by
proceeding dated 23.05.2016 the District Collector fixed the land
value at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on
01.04.2012. As pointed out earlier, the total value of the land was
arrived at Rs.75,42,800/- and the interest at the rate of 12%
totalling Rs.1,11,80,723/- was paid to the first respondent which
the first respondent received under protest. In compliance of the
order of the High Court, the District Collector passed the order
fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on
01.04.2012 (though the land came to be in occupation of TWAD
Board way back in 1991). The first respondent has not challenged
the said compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.200/- sq. ft. as on
01.04.2012 in the manner known to law. In compliance of the
order of the High Court, when the amount has been paid to the
first respondent, in our considered view, there was no
disobedience or non-compliance of the order of the court to
entertain the contempt petition.
8
14. In Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retired) (2008) 14
SCC 392, the Supreme Court held that whether contempt has been
committed or not is not a matter of mechanical application of
mind. In a given case, it has to be tested having regard to the
subject matter of the proceeding in which it is made and the nexus
between the alleged contumacious act. In the Writ Petition
No.3874/2016, the High Court only directed TWAD Board and its
officials to ensure just and reasonable compensation be paid to the
first respondent which has been duly complied with by the Board
by paying the compensation fixing the land value at the rate of
Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 as per guideline value. In
compliance with the order passed by the High Court, when the
compensation has been paid to the first respondent, there was no
question of disobedience of the order of the court to maintain the
contempt petition. Without appreciating that the order of the High
Court has been duly complied with, the learned Single Judge erred
in entertaining the contempt petition. Apart from entertaining the
contempt petition, the learned Single Judge further fell in error in
issuing positive direction to the authorities to pay further
compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which, in our
considered view, is arbitrary and unsustainable.
15. The learned senior counsel Mr. Ramamoorthy appearing for
the Board submitted that when the contempt petition came up for
hearing on 25.11.2016, the learned Single Judge issued oral
9
instructions to the TWAD Board and the appellant Board was
compelled to take further steps in fixing the higher land value. It
is stated that though no orders were passed by the learned Single
Judge on 25.11.2016, oral directions were issued by the learned
Single Judge. The same is reflected in the proceeding of the
District Collector dated 30.11.2016 as seen from the following:-
“….Thereafter, the land owner filed the contempt of court
petition in No.2626/2016 before the Chennai High Court. When
the aforesaid case was on trial, on 25.11.2016, as per the
instructions given by the honourable judge, today (30.11.2016)
the Superintending Engineer of the TWAD Board and the District
Registrar Kanchipuram, in the meeting held with them, it is
informed to the land owner as follows…..”
Though much reliance was placed upon the proceedings of the
District Collector dated 30.11.2016, we are constrained to observe
that the said proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016
fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. as on
30.11.2016 was passed under the fear of contempt of court which,
in our view, is liable to be quashed. In any event, when the entry
into land was way back in 1990-91, the first respondent cannot
claim that compensation be paid to him on the value of the land
fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016.
16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent
placed reliance upon the statement of the learned Additional
Advocate General who represented the Board in the Contempt
Petition No.2626/2016 who has stated “….that the court should
confirm itself to order compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq.
ft.” This contention does not merit acceptance. Be it noted that
10
when the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge on
13.02.2017, no affidavit has been filed by any responsible officer
that the compensation may be paid to the first respondent at the
rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. Since we are quashing the order of the
District Collector dated 30.11.2016, in our considered view, the
first respondent cannot fall back upon statement of the learned
Additional Advocate General made in the court. The respondent
cannot take advantage of such oral concession made by the
learned Additional Advocate General.
17. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to
the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.
Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel
beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been
floated, in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and
others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others (2014) 3 SCC
373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held as under:-
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to
punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both
under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb
the liberty of the individual charged with commission of
contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in
the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and
caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of selfdetermination
of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in
respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not,
therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of
the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea
of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that
while considering a contempt plea the power available to the
Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has
been already expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such
an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear
to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar,
namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5
SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004) 13 SCC
610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society
Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India v.
Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613.” [underlining added]
Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear 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 Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to
more than Rs.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 filing 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.
18. In the result, the impugned order of the Division Bench in
Contempt Petition No.2/2017 and the order of the learned Single
Judge in Contempt Petition No.2626/2016 are set aside and this
appeal is allowed.
..……………………….J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
…...………………………..J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi;
February 06, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment