Contempt proceedings cannot substitute for enforcement of binding court decisions; non-compliance must involve clear disregard of valid orders. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is limited to ensuring compliance with explicit orders.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated 3.9.2024, as passed by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court in COCP No. 3034 of 2024.

Brief facts of the case.

2. A notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short ‘the Act of 1894’) became issued on 24.3.1992, which became published, which became succeeded by a declaration made on 23.3.1993 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. In pursuance thereto, an award was made on 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-7). The said notifications were made for acquiring the land for public purpose i.e. for the development and utilization of land as commercial area for Sector-2, Part- II, Kurukshetra.

3. Being aggrieved from the issuance of said notifications, one Chander Pal along with other landowners instituted a writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No. 3859 of 1995 titled as Chander Pal and others versus State of Haryana and others, before this Court. On the said petition, this Court on 15.3.1995, had passed the following order:-

“Notice of motion for 10.5.1995.

Dispossession stayed till further orders”

4. In pursuance to the above notifications, award No. 9 was made on 22.3.1995. Pursuant to the above award, the land in question was acquired, however the possession thereof could not be taken due to the stay order (supra) passed by this Court.

5. Subsequently, the writ petition (supra) was referred to the Lok Adalat, without seeking consent of the State. Vide order dated 12.10.2000 (Annexure P-1), the said writ petition was allowed by the Lok Adalat of this Court. The order (supra) passed by the Lok Adalat of this Court becomes extracted hereinafter.

“State counsel has produced a letter dated May 10,1999, from the Land Acquisition Collector, which is placed on the record. In this letter recommendations have been made for excluding the land of the petitioners from acquisition. Only decision of the Court is invited, so that recommendations may be implemented. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed with directions to the respondents to exclude the land of the petitioners-Chander Pal and others from the acquisition proceedings under the impugned notifications. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly”

6. Being aggrieved from the order (supra), the State of Haryana filed an objection petition bearing CM No. 7011 of 2001 in CWP No. 3859 of 1995, which became dismissed vide order dated 20.4.2001.

7. Thereafter the petitioners in the writ petition (supra) sold the land in question to the present respondent i.e. M/s Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. vide sale deeds dated 9.1.2004 (Annexure P-2). Since, the mutation of the land in question was already sanctioned in favour of HSVP, therefore the respondent herein moved various representation to the authority concerned, seeking rectification in the revenue record in view of the order dated 12.10.2000 (Annexure P-1). When the respondent company came to know about the illegal transfer of the land in the name of HSVP, it filed CWP No. 20452 of 2022 seeking correction of revenue record in view of the order dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Lok Adalat of this Court. Vide order dated 9.9.2022 (Annxure P-3), the said petition was disposed by this Court. The operative part of the order (supra) becomes extracted hereinafter.

“The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to dec