A clear and categorical court order must be complied with; ambiguity cannot excuse non-compliance, as established in contempt proceedings.

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003. By the said judgment, the Contempt Petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed by holding that the order of which non-compliance was alleged was capable of two interpretations and hence the Court was not inclined to initiate any action in exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

2. Since the grievance of the appellants is that there has been non-compliance of the judgment passed in proceedings initiated by them, it would be necessary to briefly refer to the said proceedings. The predecessor of the appellants, Shri Bhaskar Govind Gavate had filed Writ Petition No.3412 of 1992 seeking a writ of mandamus for completion of acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Gat No.78 to the extent of 12 acres 24 gunthas of Village Chinchavali, Taluka and District Thane. Various other reliefs including the relief of seeking possession were sought. Similarly placed four other petitioners had also filed separate writ petitions. On 17.01.2003, all the five writ petitions came to be disposed of by passing the following common order:-

“Coram – Shri R.M. Lodha & Smt. Nishita Mhatre. JJ.

Dated : January 17, 2003

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.M. LODHA, J.):

1. In this group of Writ Petitions, at the outset, Mr. Nargolkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, tendered an affidavit of P.D. Nikumbh, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ulhas Valley Project, Thane. The same is taken on record. In the said affidavit, a statement has been made that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have no objection to hand over the possession of the land as it stands today and which is in possession of the State Government.

2. Mr. C.J. Sawant, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that the land of which possession has not been given to the State Government or for that matter Special Land Acquisition Officer for handing over to the Petitioners, which is being used for public purpose, steps have been initiated for acquisition thereof. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that some of the land, which is not being used for public purpose and which still remains with the Corporation despite the order of this Court passed on

10.06.1967 and the judgment of the Apex Court (AIR 1977 SC 183) dated 11.10.1976, shall be immediately handed over to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for delivery of possession thereor to the Petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that compensation shall be paid to the Petitioner for the portion of the land which continues to be in possession of the Corporation or the assignee Industries until acquisition of such land is complete and the possession of which continues with the Corporation which may be mutually agreed between the Petitioners and them or as may be determined by the competent forum.

3. Mr. Oka learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.5, prayer for withdrawal of the Writ Petitions. 4. Consequently, we dispose of this group of Writ petitions by following order:

ORDER

i) All the Writ petitions are allowed to be withdrawn.

ii) The Land Special Acquisition Officer Respondent No.4 is directed to hand over possession of the land as it stands today which is in possession of the State Government to the Petitioners immediately. We record the statement of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners or their representatives will attend the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22.01.2003. We also record the statement of the le