Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1268 (PNJ)

Deepinder Kumar Gupta v. Vivek Mahrotra, I. A. S.

2001-11-09

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 2268 of 2000, filed by Deepinder Kumar Gupta and Surinder Kumar Gupta was disposed of on February 18, 2000 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the question of payment of compensation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. According to the petitioners, the respondents had not taken any action nor they were informed about the action taken by the respondents, if any. In this way, they have violated the order Annexure P-1 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 2. Resultantly, this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short `the Act) was filed. 3. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have filed their separate written replies in the form of affidavits. They have given the details of the action taken relating to detailed survey of the road estimate for acquisition of land, submission of the papers in respect of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short `the Act) etc. They have taken a consistent plea that they have complied with the order passed in the writ petition and there was no intentional or wilful defiance on their part, as alleged. 4. I have heard Mr. Maharaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Surya Kant, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Sultan Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. 5. The backdrop of the case also giving rise to the filing of CWP No. 2268 of 2000, briefly stated, is that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act for acquisition of the land were issued. The land of the petitioners and others in village Mangalpur was acquired as road from G.T. Road Karnal to village Kailash Tikri was to be laid. Possession of the land was taken but the petitioners were not fully compensated and interest at the rate of 18% from 1972 was not paid to them. They have also grievance that the proceedings for acquisition had not so far been completed nor compensation paid for the last 28 years. Considering the averments contained therein, this Court had disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order :- "Present : Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate. for the petitioners. They have also grievance that the proceedings for acquisition had not so far been completed nor compensation paid for the last 28 years. Considering the averments contained therein, this Court had disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order :- "Present : Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate. for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that despite the land having been notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the proceedings for acquisition had not so far been completed nor the compensation paid for the last 28 years. Notice of motion to the respondents. Ms. Ritu Bahri, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we direct that if the averments made in the petition are correct, the State Government will take a decision on the question of payment of compensation alone within a period of six months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to the respondents. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti order. February 18, 2000 Sd/- H.S. Bedi Sd/- A.S. Garg Judges." 6. Though there is delay in the compliance of the order, it is to be seen whether the delay is intentional or that the delay in compliance of the order is justified, being beyond the control of the authorities concerned ? 7. The notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act having taken place about more than two decades had lapsed, therefore, fresh notification was required to be issued. Even the order passed in CWP 2268 of 2000 was also to be effect that the State Government will take a decision on the question of payment of compensation if the averments made in the petition are correct. 8. Adverting to the reply filed by respondent No. 3, it is deposed on solemn affirmation that administrative approval for acquisition of land was required from the Government. Accordingly, estimate was got prepared from the Executive Engineer, Karnal and the same was sent to E.I.C., Haryana, Chandigarh and then to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, PWD B&R Department. The submission made by him in para 1 on merits is also required to be taken into consideration in order to see whether there is intentional violation of the order on the part of the respondents. The relevant para reads as under :- "1. The submission made by him in para 1 on merits is also required to be taken into consideration in order to see whether there is intentional violation of the order on the part of the respondents. The relevant para reads as under :- "1. That a road starting from Bye Pass Karnal to Tikri via Kailash was constructed in the year 1971-72 as per estimates sanctioned by the Haryana Government conveyed by administrative department, Haryana P.W.D. B. & R. Deptt. vide Memo No. 1226/R dated 2.12.1970 for Rs. 2,04,400/- under village Co-operative Development Scheme against which villagers were required to bear 1/4th share of its total estimates costs. Therefore, villagers accordingly gave the land free of cost and deposited balance amount of Rs. 7100/- in cash. The land as per estimate was provided free of costs but even then the notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 14.4.1981 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 18.5.1982. The petitioners had not raised any objection before Land Acquisition Collector, regarding actual acquisition of area of land measuring 0.38 acres instead of 0.07 acre and the dispute could not be settled as the proceedings of notification dated 14.4.1981 could not be finalised due to non-availability of funds and due to further lapse of notifications, the announcement of award also could not be got made. The demand for the funds for present case under consideration and for 89 other roads was continuously made but the funds for the same could not be provided till the year 1987 and after that proceedings came to a halt as the notification under Sections 4 and 6 lapsed and all the exercise made for payment became futile." 9. It is further averred that in the originally approved scheme of 1971, the land was provided free of cost of the villagers. As per actual condition at site, compensation of land was to be made to the petitioners either by the PWD B&R or by the Panchayati Department, therefore, a fresh administrative approval from the Government for the land acquisition was required. The estimate for acquisition was got prepared from the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division and the same was sent to E.I.C. on 25.5.2000. 10. The order Annexure P-1 was passed on February 18, 2000. The estimate for acquisition was got prepared from the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division and the same was sent to E.I.C. on 25.5.2000. 10. The order Annexure P-1 was passed on February 18, 2000. The decision on the question of payment of compensation was required to be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The letter Annexure R-1 issued by the Superintending Engineer to the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, is dated 25.5.2000 wherein the order dated February 18, 2000 passed by this Court, as above, has been specifically mentioned. It is thus requested that the estimate for the land acquisition may kindly be got approved at an early date. It was followed by another letter Annexure R-2 dated 31.5.2000 and the administrative approval was required at an early date so that the land acquisition process is got completed within the time frame fixed by this Court. The Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana PWD B&R Branch then sent a rough cost estimate for acquisition of land for construction of road from G.T. Road Karnal Bye Pass to Tikri Kailash Road, Karnal, copy whereof is Annexure R-3 dated 11.7.2000. 11. Thus, it cannot be said that the authorities concerned were sitting idle over the matter or that they were not taking any action in pursuance of the orders passed in the writ petition, as above. 12. Since the proceedings for the acquisition of land were completed and the Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala Cantt gave the award, therefore, the Department has released the payment of land compensation as per award of the Land Acquisition Collector adjudicated on 18.6.2001 vide notice No. 12 of 18.6.2001. 13. The voucher having been duly acknowledged by the petitioners, i.e. Deepinder Gupta and Surinder Kumar, I am constrained to say that with this background the contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against the respondents. It is evident that wherever the proceedings are required to be taken for the acquisition of the land, for assessing the compensation amount etc., sufficient period is consumed by following the procedure laid down under the Act. 14. The right to inflict punishment for contempt of Court in terms of the Act of 1971 on to the Law Courts has been for the purposes of ensuring the rule of law and orderly administration of justice. 14. The right to inflict punishment for contempt of Court in terms of the Act of 1971 on to the Law Courts has been for the purposes of ensuring the rule of law and orderly administration of justice. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law since the image of such a majesty in the minds of the people, cannot be led to be distorted, as has been held in Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and another, 2000(1) RCR 729 (SC) : 2000(2) RSJ 22 and T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. and others, 2000(1) SCC 516. 15. For every contempt, there has to be wilful disobedience. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt is summary but the consequences are serious. The jurisdiction in contempt shall be exercised on a clear case having been made out. Mere technical contempt may not be taken note of. Thus, in the given set of circumstances when the authorities concerned had to undertake an exercise of following the procedure for the purpose of acquiring the land, assessing the compensation etc., then the delay, if any, having been occurred, cannot be attributed to the respondents terming it as a wilful defiance on their part. 16. In R.N. Dey and others v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Others, JT 2000(4) SCC 629, it has been held that Court should be slow to haul up officers of the Government for contempt for non-satisfaction of money decree. It is also observed therein that an aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and the Court. 17. Considering the circumstances explained by the respondents in their replies in the form of the affidavits and also having regard to the fact that the petitioners have received the payment towards compensation of the land acquired, as fully detailed in the affidavit of Shri S.K. Bansal, Superintending Engineer, no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings. 18. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to an mention that since Shri Vivek Mehrotra-respondent No. 1 has not filed the reply despite the adjournments, therefore, he was burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/- on March 26, 2001. 19. 18. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to an mention that since Shri Vivek Mehrotra-respondent No. 1 has not filed the reply despite the adjournments, therefore, he was burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/- on March 26, 2001. 19. Shri G.L. Gupta, Under Secretary to Government, Haryana PWD B&R, has filed an affidavit to the effect that respondent No. 1 on 15.1.2001 had proceeded to attend the long term Foreign Training Programme, whereas the present contempt petition notice was served upon his office on 8.3.2001, therefore, he was not aware of the contempt proceedings. On behalf of the respondent No. 1, it was, therefore, argued by Mr. Surya Kant, learned Advocate General that the order imposing cost upon respondent No. 1 be recalled or modified. 20. The contempt petition was filed on 18.12.2000. Notice to respondent No. 1 to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for not carrying out the directions of this Court was issued on 21.12.2000, returnable for 26.2.2001. Notice issued to respondent No. 1 for 26.2.2001 was received back with the report that Shri Vivek Mehrotra, Secretary is on tour to Delhi and he will be going abroad for training for six months. Once the respondent had got notice of the proceedings, in the contempt petition, he should have deputed someone on his behalf to state these facts instead of asking the office to return with a note on the back of the notice. Secondly, from the report, it was clear that by that time he had not left for a foreign country. In fact, he was away to Delhi on a tour. Even in C.M. No. 6951-CII on 2001 for recalling or modifying the order, it is not mentioned on which date respondent No. 1 had left for foreign country. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for recalling or modifying the order dated March 26, 2001, whereby respondent No. 1 was burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/-. 21. C.M. 6951-CII of 2001 is, therefore, dismissed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay costs of Rs. 2000/- within 15 days, as directed by order dated March 26, 2001. On the wake of the reasons and the circumstances discussed above, question of there being any act of contempt would not arise. 2000/-. 21. C.M. 6951-CII of 2001 is, therefore, dismissed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay costs of Rs. 2000/- within 15 days, as directed by order dated March 26, 2001. On the wake of the reasons and the circumstances discussed above, question of there being any act of contempt would not arise. Rather, it would be too hazardous to sentence in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities as was observed by the Apex Court in V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, 1992(4) SCC 697 : AIR 1992 SC 2153 : 1992 Cr. LJ 3576. The contempt petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule against the respondents is discharged.