Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1735 (ALL)

Hoti Lal v. Jitendra Kumar A. D. M. Fandr

2022-11-03

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Madhup Viswas, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. These connected contempt applications have been filed under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the opposite party for not complying the order of writ Court dated 04.05.2017 passed in Writ-C No. 19304 of 2017, requiring the opposite party to complete the entire proceedings in respect of Plot No. 224 and payment being made. 3. Contempt Application No. 4409 of 2017 is being taken up as the leading case and the facts of the said case in brief is being disclosed as under for better appreciation:- 4. The applicants before this Court are the patta holders of Gata No. 224 (old Gata No. 146) in Mauja-Bijauli, Gram Panchayat-Bijauli, District-Etawah. The National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter called as ‘NHAI’) needed the land for road widening of NH-2, and thus a publication was made under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1956’) for the acquisition of various plots. Initially, the Gata No. 224, 429, 608 and 642 were also included but no award was made in respect of these Gata numbers on 18.09.2014 as these being Government lands and were given to various tenure holders on lease. 5. The present dispute is in regard to Gata No. 224 whose lease was granted to applicant of the leading case as well as the connected matters by the Land Management Committee in the year 1997 which was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 02.07.1997. As the land of applicants were not part of the acquisition proceedings and were not paid compensation and was taken for road widening, they approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 16985 of 2016, which was disposed of with a direction to file a representation which was to be decided by the authorities. Since the order of writ Court was not complied with, contempt proceedings were drawn by the applicant being Contempt Application No. 4192 of 2016 which was dismissed as infructuous on the affidavit filed by opposite party on the ground that the Gata No. 224 was not part of the acquisition. Since the order of writ Court was not complied with, contempt proceedings were drawn by the applicant being Contempt Application No. 4192 of 2016 which was dismissed as infructuous on the affidavit filed by opposite party on the ground that the Gata No. 224 was not part of the acquisition. The said order was challenged through Writ-C No. 14227 of 2017 by one Smt. Shanti Devi and on 18.04.2017, the writ Court directed that entire proceedings in respect of plot be completed and payment be made to the tenure holders. Subsequently, the present applicant also filed writ petition which was decided in terms of order dated 18.04.2017 on 04.05.2017. 6. As the order of writ Court was not complied with, the present contempt proceedings have been initiated at the behest of the applicants against the opposite party. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that by virtue of Section 131-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, applicants have become Bhumidhar with transferable rights after completion of 10 years in possession over the land which was allotted to them in the year 1997 and are entitled for fair compensation according to various Government Orders. He then contended that circle rate issued by Collector of the year 2017 provides that the land which is situated in abadi, the market value is Rs.11,000/-per square meter and the respondent authorities are only paying Rs.2,000/-per square meter. According to him, the authorities are not complying the order of writ Court and are flouting the same and for last 8 years no compensation amount has been paid to them. 8. Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel appearing for NHAI submitted that Gata No. 224 is a Government land and under the earlier policy dated 10.04.2017, only compensation for the structure standing over the Government land was payable. However, as the policy was amended subsequently on 06.02.2018, now the compensation is paid on the land as well as the structure standing over it. According to him, Project Director had required the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah to submit a report, who on verification found that no superstructure was standing over the land of the applicant. Moreover, the land in question is still recorded in the name of Government in revenue records and the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. According to him, Project Director had required the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah to submit a report, who on verification found that no superstructure was standing over the land of the applicant. Moreover, the land in question is still recorded in the name of Government in revenue records and the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. He then invited the attention of the Court to order dated 9th December, 2020 passed by NHAI and having been addressed to local counsel appearing for the applicants that as 14 patta holders of Plot No. 429 had already been given compensation according to Rs.2,000/-per square meter, thus, the remaining 20 other patta holders of Gata Nos. 224, 608 and 642 were paid the same compensation which has been given to plot holders of Gata No. 429, copy of said correspondence has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to supplementary counter affidavit no. 6. He then contended that this Court on three occasions i.e. on 04.01.2021, 11.01.2021 and 20.04.2022 had directed the applicants to furnish their AADHAR card and bank details to the opposite party who were to transfer the compensation amount and the sale-deed was to be executed by the applicants in favour of the opposite party, but till date they have not turned up and are disputing on the quantum of money. 9. Sri Dube lastly contended that other tenure holders whose land has been taken by the NHAI have been given compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per square meter and the claim of applicants at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per square meter cannot be accepted. 10. I have heard respective counsels and perused the material on record. 11. This bunch of contempt applications has arisen out of order dated 04.05.2017 of the writ Court which requires the opposite party to complete the proceedings in respect of Gata No. 224 and pay the compensation amount to the land holders whose land have already been taken by NHAI for the road widening in the year 2014. The present applicants had earlier approached this Court, and on direction by writ Court, representation was filed by them which remained unattended and earlier also contempt proceedings were drawn against opposite party. 12. The present applicants had earlier approached this Court, and on direction by writ Court, representation was filed by them which remained unattended and earlier also contempt proceedings were drawn against opposite party. 12. The matter remained pending on the ground that though the award was made in the year 2014, but it was found that land belonging to applicants were in fact leased out to them by the Land Management Committee and was a State Government land, for which compensation according to circular of 2017 was only payable on the structure standing over the land. On the report submitted by Tehsildar, it was found that no structure was standing over the land allotted to the applicants, though the claim of the applicants was that temporary structure was standing over the same. 13. The circular of 2017 was amended subsequently in the year 2018, wherein a provision was made that not only the compensation was to be paid for the structure standing over the land, but also for the land. 14. It was pursuant to the direction of the writ Court that authorities swung into action and intimated the applicants in the year 2020 that they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per square meter of the land, which has been paid to the other 14 tenure holders of Gata No. 429. This rate was not only paid to the applicants but to other land holders of Gata Nos. 608 and 642. Pursuant to information sent by NHAI on 9th December, 2020 to local counsel of the applicants, number of notices were sent to them. When the matter was taken up on 04.01.2021, counsel appearing for the applicants had made a statement that the applicants were ready to accept the compensation determined by the authorities and following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the applicant on instructions submits that the applicant in the instant application and the applicants in the connected petitions are ready to accept the compensation, determined by the authorities. A copy of the aadhar-card and bank account of the applicants in all the cases shall be supplied on the next date. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 undertakes that on receiving the identification card and bank account details, the compensation amount shall be transferred to the respective bank accounts of the applicants. Put up on 11.01.2021, along with all the connected cases.” 15. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 undertakes that on receiving the identification card and bank account details, the compensation amount shall be transferred to the respective bank accounts of the applicants. Put up on 11.01.2021, along with all the connected cases.” 15. Thereafter, the matter came up on 11.01.2021 wherein the Court had recorded the fact that applicants were ready to execute the sale-deed/consent document in respect of their property with the competent authority on the date, as and when, they are informed by NHAI. Following order was passed on 11.01.2021:- “Supplementary affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated 04.01.2021 filed today is taken on record. The applicant of the instant application and the applicants of the connected applications are prepared to accept the compensation/ sale proceeds and undertake to execute the sale deed/consent document in respect of their property with the competent authority on the date, as and when, they are informed by the National Highway Authority. After execution of the documents/instrument, the total amount towards compensation shall be deposited by the National Highway Authority with the competent authority (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Etawah). The amount payable to the respective applicants shall be transferred in their bank account by the competent authority within the next 36 hours of the execution of the documents/instruments. List on 25.02.2021.” 16. Again the case was taken up on 20.04.2022 when the counsel for the applicant made a statement that his client is ready to execute the sale-deed within two weeks and further requested the Court to fix some date so that both the parties may be present at the Registrar Office for execution of sale-deed. The Court fixed 04.05.2022 as the date for execution of sale-deed and following order was passed:- “Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the applicant Sri Kamleshwar Singh submitted that his client is ready to execute the sale-deed in favour of National Highway Authority of India within two weeks. He further requested the Court to fix some date so that both the parties may be present at registry office for execution of the sale-deed. Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel appearing for National Highway Authority of India, submitted that on the earlier occasion the applicant had not turned down to execute the sale-deed. He further requested the Court to fix some date so that both the parties may be present at registry office for execution of the sale-deed. Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel appearing for National Highway Authority of India, submitted that on the earlier occasion the applicant had not turned down to execute the sale-deed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court directs the applicant as well as the opposite party to be present before the registry officer on 04.05.2022 for execution of the sale-deed in regard to the land in dispute by the applicant in favour of the National Highway Authority of India. Put up this case in the additional cause list on 10.05.2022.” 17. Despite the above three orders, applicants never presented themselves before the Registry Officer for execution of the document in favour of the National Highways Authority and thus compensation could not be paid. 18. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on 17.05.2022, the applicants came up with a new case that circle rate fixed by the Collector of 2017 depicts the market value at Rs.11,000/-per square meter and thus they are not ready to execute the sale-deed for Rs.2,000/-per square meter. 19. Now, the dispute which has been raised by the applicants is to the quantum of the compensation to be paid by the opposite party to the applicants in view of list of the Collector of 2017 which reflects the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per square meter. 20. This Court finds that applicants should not forget the fact that land was acquired in the year 2014 and compensation was paid to the other land holders at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per square meter and the present applicants who were left out and were not paid compensation had approached the writ Court and writ Court on 04.05.2017 had only directed for completion of the proceedings in respect of payment of compensation. The writ Court had never quantified the amount to be paid to the applicants. 21. Under the contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot adjudicate the claim of the applicants in respect of quantum of compensation to be paid by the authorities, as it has only to see that the order of writ Court is complied with by opposite party. The writ Court had never quantified the amount to be paid to the applicants. 21. Under the contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot adjudicate the claim of the applicants in respect of quantum of compensation to be paid by the authorities, as it has only to see that the order of writ Court is complied with by opposite party. Once the writ Court had not adjudicated upon the quantum of compensation to be paid to the applicant, and had only directed the proceedings to be completed in respect of payment of compensation of Plot No. 224, the claim of applicants for enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,000/-per square meter to be paid by the authorities to Rs.11,000/-per square meter as claimed by them cannot be dealt with in proceedings under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts’ Act. 22. Recent the Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another, 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held that contempt Court cannot do roving inquiry, and can only see that order of writ Court is complied with by the authorities. Further, under the contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot travel beyond what has been said by the Court of first instance. Relevant para 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereasunder:- "8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings." 23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that on three occasions i.e. on 04.01.2021, 11.01.2021 and 20.04.2022, the counsel for the applicant had made statement that his client was ready to accept the compensation fixed by the authorities and was ready to execute the sale-deed. On 20.04.2022, it was on the request of the applicant that the Court had fixed 04.05.2022 as the date for execution of the sale-deed by the applicants. The Court cannot permit the applicants to play with judicial system, and once after accepting the compensation they cannot come up with a case for enhancement. 24. This Court finds that quantum of compensation cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, and if the applicants are not satisfied with the compensation amount, they may approach the legal forum provided under the Act for redressal of their grievance. 25. The contempt proceedings are misconceived and are hereby dismissed. 26. Contempt notice stands discharged.