Contempt of Court:
Writ petition in respect of compensation amount for the land acquired by Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) – High Court directed the Board to submit report to the District Collector to ensure fair and reasonable compensation to the writ petitioner – In compliance of order of High Court, District Collector passed order fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 200/– per sq. ft. as on 1.4.2012 – When the compensation amount was paid to the claimant, he received the same under protest – The claimant filed contempt petition against the appellant alleging disobedience of order of High Court – High Court issued some oral instructions, whereupon, District Collector enhanced the value of the land @ Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. – High Court thereafter fixed the vaue of the land @ Rs. 600/- per sq. ft. – Contempt appeal dismissed by Division Bench of High Court – On appeal, held: A party can be proceeded for disobedience of court order only when there is wilful disobedience and non-compliance of Court order – In the present case, there was no disobedience or non-compliance of the Court order to entertain contempt petition – High Court fell in error in entertaining the contempt petition and also in issuing positive direction to the authorities to pay further compensation which is arbitrary and unsustainable – The enhancement of land value @ Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. by District Collector, since passed under fear of contempt, the same is liable to be quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A party can be proceeded for disobedience of the order of the court only when there is willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order passed by the court. On perusal of the order passed in Writ Petition it is seen that in the said order, court has only directed the authorities to ensure that fair and reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first respondent and is paid at the earliest. The officers quickly acted in order to comply with the direction of the High Court. When the direction was only to consider the case of the first respondent for ensuring fair and reasonable compensation and having regard to the swift action taken by the appellant and other officials, there was no disobedience of the order of the court, much less wilful disobedience to invoke contempt jurisdiction. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. [Paras 12 and 17] [808-F-G; 810-H]
2. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the District Collector passed the order fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 (though the land came to be in occupation of the Board way back in 1991). The first respondent has not challenged the said compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.200/- sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 in the manner known to law. In compliance of the order of the High Court, when the amount has been paid to the first respondent, there was no disobedience or non-compliance of the order of the court to entertain the contempt petition. [Para 13][809-B-C]
3. Without appreciating that the order of the High Court has been duly complied with, the Single Judge erred in entertaining the contempt petition. Apart from entertaining the contempt petition, the Single Judge further fell in error in issuing positive direction to the authorities to pay further compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which is arbitrary and unsustainable. It is public money and having implications on the public exchequer, the public money cannot be allowed to be taken away by an individual by filing contempt petition thereby armtwisting the authorities. The order passed by the Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench is ex-facie erroneous and liable to be set aside. [Paras 14 and 17][809-F-G; 812-B]
4. The proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. as on 30.11.2016 was passed under the fear of contempt of court, which is liable to be quashed. In any event, when the entry into the land was way back in 1990-91, the first respondent cannot claim that compensation be paid to him on the value of the land fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016. [Para 15][810-D] Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retired) (2008) 14 SCC 392 : [2008] 7 SCR 278; Sudhir
Vasudeva,
Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others v. M. George
Ravishekaran and others (2014) 3 SCC 373 : [2014] 4 SCR 27 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.