Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence has filed the present application seeking leave of Court to intervene in CPAN 1608 of 2006, being an application filed by the petitioner alleging contempt of the order dated 26.8.1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing C.O. No. 10642(W) of 1986, operative part whereof reads as follows:

“In view of above, the law in this regard has been set at rest, by the Supreme Court by this time that if the authority intends to acquire the property, the authority cannot remain idle for indefinite period by passing the order of requisition and continue the same and, as such, the second writ petition is entitled to succeed, to this extent that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued against the Union of India, Deputy Director, Military Land and Cantonments, Eastern Command (ML & C) Fort William, Calcutta, being respondent No.6 and other appropriate authorities by commanding them to take steps for acquisition of the property in respect of “Rohini Tea Estate”, which is continuing under the purview of requisition, either under the Defence of India Act and Rules and/or the Act of 1952, forthwith. The said respondent No.6 is also directed to proceed in the said regard, in accordance with law to acquire the land and to determine the compensation for acquisition, as well as compensation for requisition, within a period of 6 months from communication of this order. The second writ petition is also allowed accordingly.”

It is not in dispute that though the judgment and order dated 26.8.1988 was reversed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 8.6.1994, the Apex Court by its judgment and order dated 3.4.2001 upset the said Division Bench judgment and restored the order of the learned Single Judge. It is further not in dispute that on an application for review of the order dated 3.4.2001 filed by the Union of India, the Apex Court on 9.2.2004 passed the following order:

“Heard learned Additional Solicitor General and learned senior counsel appearing on either side. On a careful consideration of the respective submissions, we are of the view that there is no scope for undertaking consideration of all such contentions, and they deserve to be disposed of only as hereunder. The applications for clarification, modification as well as review petitions subsequently filed shall stand dismissed without going into the merits of the claim of the parties on either side. We also leave open the questions relating to actual rights of parties over and in respect of the properties/land in question”.

Mr. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing in support of the application contended that the petitioners have no title to the land/property in question and, therefore, no consequent right to be compensated. According to him, this issue was raised by the Union of India in its review application before the Apex Court and the question relating to mutual rights of the parties over and in respect of the property/land in question having been left open, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit flowing from the order dated 26.8.1988. He submitted that compensation, if at all, has to be paid from the account of the Ministry of Defence, Union of India and, therefore, Union of India ought to be allowed to participate in this proceeding to prevent drainage of public fund in the form of compensation in favour of the petitioner who has no right in respect thereof particularly when the alleged contemnor/opposite party no.2, prima facie, has been formed to collude with the petitioner, giving the extant rules a complete go bye thus indulging in misconduct, and is facing disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that the application for intervention, apart from not being maintainable in law, ought to fail on merits. According to him, the Union of India is seeking to reopen issues which have al