SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 416

2008(2) Supreme 335
Supreme Court of india
(From Patna High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Bihar Finance Service H.C. Coop. Soc. Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
Gautam Goswami & Ors. — Respondents
Review Petition (civil) 44 of 2005
Civil Appeal No. 1357 of 2003
Decided on : 05-03-2008

important Point
Having regard to the purport and object for which Regional Development Authority Acts are enacted, it cannot be contended that no action should be taken against defaulters only because they have constructed their houses long back.

Headnote:(a)Bihar Regional Development Authorities Act, 1982 – Such statutes are enacted for planned development of the cities – They also subserve promotion and protection of ecology which is one of the foremost needs of the society – Therefore, if somebody has made constructions without obtaining any sanction, he must face the consequences therefor – Having regard to the purport and object for which such Acts are enacted, it cannot be contended that no action should be taken against defaulters only because they have constructed their houses long back. (Para 20)

       (2006) 3 SCC 434; (1999) 6 SCC 464 – Relied upon.

       (b)Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 – Section 12 and Article 129, Constitution of India – 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. (Para 23)

       2007 (11) SCALE 750; AIR 2005 SC 3200; (2001) 10 SCC 496; (1995) 5 SCC 619; (2004) 7 SCC 261 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case:

       1. Petitioner is a cooperative society. With the intention to have a plot for construction of houses for its members a requisition was made for acquisition of land before the State on or about 3.07.1973.

       2. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated wherein 59.94 acres of land was acquired. Petitioner-Society deposited the entire amount of compensation.

       3.Several writ applications came to be filed before the Patna High Court questioning the said proceedings which were allowed.

       4.The High Court pursuant to direction of Supreme Court had passed an order dated 20.06.2001 directing release of 12.9603 acres of land. Claims in respect of the rest of the lands were rejected and the District Magistrate Patna was directed to identify the lands and deliver possession thereof to the petitioner-society, if necessary, after the demolition of the constructions made thereon.

       5.In the meanwhile, several transactions were made. Several constructions, some of which were totally illegal, came up in some portions of the acquired lands.

       6.One Ashish Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti preferred an appeal thereagainst before Supreme Court whereupon 17.68 acres of land were further released in favour of various contenders.

       7. Allegedly, the said order was not complied with.

       8. The total area of the lands acquired for the petitioner-society was 59.94 acres of land. According to the petitioner, although it was entitled to be given possession of about 31.7725 acres of land, possession of, however, only 9.99 acres was delivered to it. On 2/3.02.2007, possession of an area of 5.91775 acres of land was handed over to the petitioner-society.

       Findings of the Court :

       In a contempt proceeding the Court cannot go behind the order.

       Result : Appeal disposed with observations.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. This contempt proceeding has a chequered history. Petitioner is a cooperative society. It intended to have a plot for construction of houses for its members.

A requisition was made for acquisition of land for the said purpose on their own behalf before the State on or about 3.07.1973.

2. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated pursuant thereto. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. The owners of the land filed objections under Section 5A of the Act. Overruling the said objection, the proceedings were continued. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued followed by an award. In the said proceedings, 59.94 acres of land was acquired. Petitioner Society deposited the entire amount of compensation.

Several writ applications came to be filed before the Patna High Court questioning the said proceedings.

3. The said writ petitions were allowed by the High Court stating:

“40.For the reasons aforementioned in considered opinion, all the writ applications are fit to be allowed and the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide notification dated 16/18.03.1983 as contained in Annexure 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 2755 of 1988 is fit to be quashed. The case, however, has to be remitted to the respondents State Government for further proceeding in the matter of inquiry under Section 40 of the Act and Rule 4 of the aforementioned Rules and under the Act for inquiry under Section 5A of the Act until objections filed by the petitioners in accordance with law.”

4. However, on an appeal preferred thereagainst, this Court in Shyam Nandan Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar and others (since reported in (1993) 4 SCC 255), while clarifying the law operating in the field stated that where such a requisition is made on the part of a Company which a cooperative society is, Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply. This Court in its judgment invoked the principle of ‘individualized justice’ directing:

“22.Having thus clarified the law governing the field, we would open doors for streams of equities and discretions to enter in the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As observed earlier, we are of the view that the High Court should not have upset the notification under Section 6 of the Act as a whole and should have individualised justice vis-a-vis each writ petitioner before it, having regard to the equities interplaying in each case and to the regulation of its discretion keeping in view host of other factors which weigh with the High Court to deny, grant or mould relief even when illegalities in procedure keep staring. Thus for the view afore-expressed, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and remit all these matters back to it with the request that though it may take them up as a batch, it may give individual attention to each case, view the illegalities pointed out by the writ petitioner in their right perspective having regard to the time factor and confine the relief, if due, to him separately. We shall not be taken to have controlled the discretion of the High Court in administering individualised justice and amongst others it may, with the cooperation of the Society and of the State Government, as also the writ petitioners examine the possibility of an equitable solution so that the fist of law and the discretion of the court do not hurt unbearably. We thus remit the matters to the High Court without any order as to costs.”

The High Court pursuant to the said direction had passed an order dated 20.06.2001 directing release of 12.9603 acres of land. Claims in respect of the rest of the lands were rejected and the District Magistrate Patna was directed to identify the lands and deliver possession thereof to the petitioner society, if necessary, after the demolition of the constructions made thereon.

In the meanwhile, several transactions were made. Several constructions, some of which wer







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top