JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard Sri Shambhu Prasad Sharma, Secretary, Sky Enclave Gramin Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd, 60 Jaipur House Market, Agra, in person; and Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the contemnor-opposite party. 2. This contempt application has been filed by Pt. Nawin Sharma, Member Executive Committee, Sky Enclave Gramin Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd (herein after referred to as the Samiti), 60 Jaipur House Market, Agra against Pankaj Kumar, Collector, Agra alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 6.1.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 57803 of 2010. 3. It appears that the petitioner, as person authorised under a resolution of the Samiti, filed Writ C No. 57803 of 2010 alleging that the Samiti was owner in possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670 Mauja Patholi, Tehsil and District Agra in respect of which, the Union of India issued a Gazette Notification dated 14.2.2007, under Sections 3 and 7 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), imposing restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of the land being in the vicinity of Indian Air Force Station, Agra and its installation. It was alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the Wing Commander, Air Force Station, Agra issued a letter dated 28.1.2010 to the Vice Chairman, Agra Development Authority, Agra intimating him to ensure that no departmental work is carried out over the land which was covered by the notification. It was claimed that as the land of the Samiti was affected by the notification therefore the Collector, Agra be directed to make an award for compensation in respect of the land, under Section 12 of the Act. It was prayed that interest should also be paid on the compensation so awarded from the date of imposition of such restriction up to the date of payment of the compensation. In the said writ petition, it appears, despite opportunity given to the respondents, no counter-affidavit was filed. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 6.1.2014 with a direction that in case the petitioner files an application before the Collector, Agra for compensation, the Collector will proceed as per the provisions of Sections 9 and 12 of the Act and make an award within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 4. 4. The contempt application was filed alleging that despite having made a representation claiming compensation, no award was passed by the Collector in compliance of the direction issued by the writ Court. 5. On 28.8.2014 notice was issued to the opposite party. 6. The opposite party filed an affidavit dated 27.10.2014 annexing therewith the order dated 4.10.2010. It was stated in the affidavit that the claim for compensation in respect of plots in question had already been adjudicated vide order dated 4.10.2010, pursuant to a previous direction of this Court dated 11.5.2010 passed in Writ C No. 26577 of 2010, and the said order had neither been challenged nor set aside by a competent Court. It was further stated that another writ petition No. 66722 of 2010 was filed by the Samiti for passing an award under Section 12 of the Act, which was disposed of by order dated 9.7.2012 with a direction to the Collector to pass appropriate order and in compliance of the direction given in the said writ petition, on 15.12.2012, the then District Magistrate, Agra rejected the claim for compensation. It was further stated that against the order dated 15.12.2012 writ petition No. 20446 of 2013 was filed in which parties have exchanged affidavits and the matter is pending consideration. It was further claimed that pursuant to the order dated 6.1.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 57803 of 2010 another order was passed on 30.9.2014, thereby rejecting the claim. In the above background, it was claimed that the order of the writ Court has been substantially complied with. 7. It appears that the order that was passed by the District Magistrate, Agra pursuant to the order passed by the writ Court dated 6.1.2014 was not in the nature of an award, as was mandated by the writ Court, therefore, another supplementary compliance affidavit dated 20.1.2015 sworn by Pankaj Kumar, District Magistrate, Agra was filed annexing therewith copy of an award dated 15.1.2015 by which zero compensation was awarded to the Samiti concerned on the ground that the land of the Samiti was recorded as agricultural land and was to be used for agricultural purposes and as by imposition of restrictions under the Act, no loss was caused to the Samiti, award of any compensation under the Act was not required. While passing the said award, a report of the Wing Commander, Deputy Chief Administration Officer, Agra was relied wherein it was mentioned that plot Nos. 665 to 670 were agricultural land and that in respect of the said plots the Air Force had never given any NOC nor any permission was obtained from the Agra Development Authority, Agra for residential project. 8. Sri Shambhu Prasad Sharma, Secretary of the Samiti has filed an Application No. 138820 of 2016, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which is supported by his own affidavit, for lodging of complaint before a Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agra against the opposite party for having committed an offence punishable under Section 193 IPC. It is alleged in the said application/affidavit that a false compliance affidavit has been filed and false statement has been made in the award that never any ‘No Objection Certificate’ was granted by the Air Force for development of the plots in question. In support of his contention, Sri Shambhu Nath Sharma has invited attention of the Court to Annexure 5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Annexure 5 is a letter issued by Sanyukt Niyojak, Sambhagiya Niyojan Khand, Nagar and Gram Niyojan Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh, Nagar Mahapalika Bhawan, Agra to the Secretary of the Samiti thereby informing that the area where plot Nos. 159, 165, 176, 203 at Village Pitholi, Tehsil and District Agra are located is earmarked to be used for residential purpose in the master plan. Attention of the Court has also been invited to a letter dated 8.4.1996 (Annexure 6 to the affidavit) issued by the Assistant Urban Planner, Agra Development Authority, Agra to the Samiti thereby informing that plot Nos. 157 to 170 and 174 to 204 fall in the residential zone-I whereas plot Nos. 171, 173, 206 fall in the residential zone-II and that plot Nos. 161, 175, 179, 187, 205 would be Chakroad, as per the land used earmarked in the Agra Master Plan. Attention of the Court has also been invited to a letter dated 7.1.1989 (Annexure 7 to the affidavit) sent by D.P. Sharma, Flt. 171, 173, 206 fall in the residential zone-II and that plot Nos. 161, 175, 179, 187, 205 would be Chakroad, as per the land used earmarked in the Agra Master Plan. Attention of the Court has also been invited to a letter dated 7.1.1989 (Annexure 7 to the affidavit) sent by D.P. Sharma, Flt. Lt., on behalf of the Air Force Commanding Officer, to the Assistant Engineer, Agra Development Authority, Agra in the context of issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ stating therein that in reference to letter dated 29th October, 1988 ‘No Objection Certificate’ is being issued to the Development Authority for construction of commercial/residential accommodation as per the colony plan submitted by the Samiti to the Headquarters subject to certain conditions. Relying on the aforesaid documents, Sri S.P. Sharma has submitted that all these documents would go to show that the land in question, which belongs to the Samiti, was to be used for residential purpose and the observation in the award that the said land was to be used for agriculture purpose is nothing but false and false to the own knowledge of the Collector, who has sworn the affidavit of compliance and, therefore, is guilty of perjury and, as such, is liable to be proceeded for offence of perjury. 9. In response to the above submissions, Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, who appears on behalf of the contemnor-opposite party, submits that while passing the award due opportunity of hearing was given to the office bearers of the Samiti and the documents, which have been placed before this Court, were considered by the officer while passing the award and the while passing the award, the Officer has taken notice of the fact that the alleged ‘No Objection Certificate’, which was set up by the Samiti to sustain its claim, related to different plot numbers than those for which the writ petition No. 57803 of 2010 was filed, inasmuch as, the said writ petition was in respect of plot Nos. 665 to 670 whereas ‘No Objection Certificate’ related to different plot numbers. It has thus been submitted that the allegation that the statement made in the award was based on false facts, which were false to the own knowledge of the officer, is not correct. 665 to 670 whereas ‘No Objection Certificate’ related to different plot numbers. It has thus been submitted that the allegation that the statement made in the award was based on false facts, which were false to the own knowledge of the officer, is not correct. He has further submitted that it is not in dispute that the land in question, at present, is being used for agriculture purpose and no possession of the said land has been taken, therefore, once it is proved that it was being used only for agriculture purpose, no loss could have been caused to the Samiti on restrictions being imposed under the Act and, as such, the zero compensation award passed by the Collector cannot be said to be in gross violation of the direction issued by this Court. It has been submitted that this Court had only directed the officer to pass an award and there was no adjudication of the rights of the claimant and there was also no observation with regards to the correctness of the claim of the claimant and accordingly it was open for the officer to adjudicate and take a decision, which the officer took in good faith by passing an order in compliance of the order passed by the writ Court and, as such, the contempt proceeding as well as the application to lodge complaint for perjury is not sustainable. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the applicant as well as by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnor opposite party. From the record it appears that the documents on which the applicant places reliance for moving an application to lodge complaint of perjury disclose different plot numbers than the plot numbers on which the claim was based in the writ petition. 11. Whether the plot numbers for which ‘No Objection Certificate’ was granted by the authority concerned related to the old numbers of the plots in respect of which the writ petition was filed is a matter which requires adjudication but there is no adjudication on that aspect by a competent Court of law. 12. 11. Whether the plot numbers for which ‘No Objection Certificate’ was granted by the authority concerned related to the old numbers of the plots in respect of which the writ petition was filed is a matter which requires adjudication but there is no adjudication on that aspect by a competent Court of law. 12. As this Court by its order dated 6.1.2014 had only directed the Collector to pass an award without dealing with any of the issues on merits, the act of passing an award by the opposite party, even though it may be a zero compensation award, cannot be said to be a contumacious conduct of the opposite party because he has given his own reasons to sustain the award and it has been passed on the basis of his own assessment of the facts and law, therefore, it would not amount to willful disobedience of the direction given by the writ Court. It is well-settled that where pursuant to a direction of the writ Court some decision is taken by the authority concerned, it gives a fresh cause of action which can be used by the aggrieved party to take recourse to appropriate legal proceeding. In such a case, the contempt Court must not ordinarily enter into examining the correctness of the decision of the authority unless the said decision is in gross violation of the guidelines laid in the direction given to the authority for taking a decision. As, in the instant case, the writ Court had not directed the opposite party to take a decision in a particular manner, by taking a decision on the basis of his own understanding of fact and law, the opposite party did not violate the order of the writ Court. Therefore I do not find any good ground to continue with the contempt proceeding. 13. So far as the claim of the applicant that the opposite party is guilty of perjury is concerned, suffice to say that mere making of an incorrect statement does not amount to making of a false statement. There is a difference between a false statement and an incorrect statement. A false statement is one which the proponent of the statement is aware that it is incorrect. There is a difference between a false statement and an incorrect statement. A false statement is one which the proponent of the statement is aware that it is incorrect. According to Black’s Law Dictionary false statement mean an incorrect statement made or acquiesced in with knowledge of incorrectness or with reckless indifference to actual facts and with no reasonable ground to believe it correct. They mean more than erroneous or untrue and import intention to deceive. Similarly in P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, false statement has been defined as a statement knowingly false, or made recklessly without honest belief in its truth, and with purpose to mislead or deceive. An incorrect statement made or acquiesced in with knowledge of incorrectness or with reckless indifference to actual facts and with no reasonable ground to believe it correct. Such are more than erroneous or untrue and import intention to deceive. Accordingly, merely if a statement is incorrect would not make it false unless it can be demonstrated that its proponent was aware that it was incorrect or it was made with reckless indifference to actual facts and with no reasonable ground to believe it to be correct. 14. Coming to the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the Collector (opposite party herein) while passing the award was aware that the statement which he was making in the award was false to his own knowledge or that he did not believe that the statement which he was making was not correct. Basis of the application, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., is the ‘No Objection Certificate’ and the documents which have been placed by the applicant before the Court that relate to the period 1989 onwards. Those certificates relate to plot numbers that find no mention in the writ petition. Whether those plot numbers are the old numbers of the plots mentioned in the writ petition or not becomes a matter of evidence which has apparently not been placed before the authority at the time he passed the award and, therefore, it cannot be said that authority while passing the award had made any false statement which may warrant proceeding for perjury. 15. In view of the above, no further action is required in these contempt proceedings. The contempt application is consigned to the record. The notices are discharged. 15. In view of the above, no further action is required in these contempt proceedings. The contempt application is consigned to the record. The notices are discharged. The Application No. 138820 of 2016, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., is rejected with liberty to the applicant to challenge the correctness of the award before the appropriate Court/forum as may be available to him under the law. ———————