The doctrine of merger and waiver of earlier orders by subsequent legal actions.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)--This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for violation of the order 26.03.2010 passed in WP(C) 2449/2007 and also to restore status quo ante as on 03.05.2018.

2. As per the order dated 26.03.2010, the Division Bench was pleased to order as under:

"42. We are thus of the view that acquisition proceedings are not required to be quashed on account of the plea of the petitioners and as to whether the sanctioned farm houses are liable to be released from acquisition proceeding is an aspect which needs to be examined by the competent authority under Section 48 of the said Act.

43. We thus permit the petitioners to file a representation to the competent authority under Section 48 of the said Act raising all pleas as are germane within thirty days of pronouncement of this judgment and the said applications, if so filed, would be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority. Till such time as the applications are decided, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners and the parties will maintain status quo as to nature, title and possession of the land in question. In case of an adverse decision, this benefit would continue for a period of fifteen days after the date of the receipt of the decision by the petitioners in order to enable the petitioners to take recourse to the legal remedy, if any. We, however, make it clear that if no such application is filed within a period of thirty days of pronouncement of this judgment, the respondents would be free to proceed against the land In question."

3. Thereupon the petitioners made a representation on 22.04.2010. On account of promulgation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the petitioners filed a fresh writ petition being WP(C) 4530/2014 seeking benefit under Section 24(2) of the said Act.

4. The writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.11.2014 and the acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed.

5. The respondent challenged the said order in SLP and vide order dated 16.02.2018, the SLPs were allowed and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondent owners before the High Court. Thereafter the possession was taken by the respondent on 04.05.2018. Thereupon the present contempt petition has been filed.

6. It is stated by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case, the order dated 26.03.2010 was categorical and directed the respondents to first decide the objection under Section 48 of the petitioner and till the said time, no coercive steps were to be taken by the respondent. The objections were not decided and the status quo with regard to possession was not maintained.

7. He states that the respondents have, till date, not decided the representation and despite that have taken possession on 04.05.2018.

8. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of "Delhi Development Authority vs. Ashok Solomon and Ors." in Civil Appeal No. 3565 of 2023 and orders passed in "Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. Etc." to urge that the taking of proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation is no bar to the rights accrued in favour of the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

9. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents state that once the petitioners have moved under the Right to Fair Compensation, they have given up their rights under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and once those writ petitions have been dismissed, the contempt petition will not lie.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. In the present case, the letter dated 10.07.2014 written by the petitioner himself/themselves is most important. Para 5 and 6 of the letter read as under:

"5. Therefore, in view of the statutory mandate under the New Land Acquisitio