Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Er. K. Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
V. Balakrishnan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1510 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30317 of 2017)
Decided On : 06-02-2019
(2008) 14 SCC 392 – Relied upon
(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Direction in writ petition only to consider the case for ensuring fair and reasonable compensation – Appellant and other officials taking swift action taken – Compensation fixed and paid – Contempt petition not maintainable – Fixing a higher rate in contempt proceeding held arbitrary. (Para 14)
(c) Property law – Appellant entering into land in 1990-91 – Respondent cannot claim compensation on the value of the land fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016. (Para 15)
(d) Administration of justice – Concession by counsel – District Collector fixing rate of land at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. after proceedings of High Powered Committee – Refixing the rate at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. under apprehension of contempt proceeding – Advocate General conceding to it in oral arguments – Held, such refixation not sustainable – Also held, respondent cannot take advantage of such concession. (Para 16)
(e) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed – Instantly, entertaining the contempt petition and directing appellant to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft. involving Rs.4,00,00,000/- of public exchequer held erroneous – Public money cannot be allowed to be taken away by an individual by filing contempt petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities. (Para 17)
(2014) 3 SCC 373 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
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. 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 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 which the first respondent refused to receive and the same was returned.
On 31.01.2016, the first respondent filed Writ Petition and on the third day of filing of the petition, 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 District Collector fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.200/-per sq. ft.
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.
The first respondent did not challenge the rate fixed by the District Collector at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. 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 District Collector 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 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.
Being aggrieved by the above order passed in the contempt proceedings, the appellant-Board preferred appeal before the Division Bench which has been dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Contempt jurisdiction can be invoked only in case of willful disobedience and noncompliance of the order passed by the court.
Nobody can claim compensation on the value of the land, entered into in 19090-91, to be fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016.
Court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.
Public money cannot be allowed to be taken away by an individual by filing contempt petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
