JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present applications have been filed for the following reliefs : “10A. That respondent no. 4 deliberately and willfully have not complied with the order of the Hon’ble Court, hence defendant no. 4 may be imprisoned in Civil Jail for a term of six months or fined and adequately dealt with in accordance with law for the aforesaid Contempt of Court committed by him. B. Be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to recompute and pass fresh award at the present market value and to make payment of compensation immediately without further delay and to place the compliance report before this Hon’ble High Court AND/OR Respondent authorities be directed to pay compiund interest at the rate of 10% per annum on delayed payment i.e. from the date of award to actual payment.” 2. The prayer clauses suggests that the applicants are seeking directions against the respondent No.4 for willfully non-complying with the directions issued by this Court and also in prayer clause at Paragraph No.10-B, the directions are sought that the respondents may re-compute and pass a fresh award at the present market value and to make payment of compensation immediately without further delay. 3. The present contempt proceedings emanate from the judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017 passed in the captioned writ petitions and other allied matters. The present applications seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings are filed in Special Civil Application No.12438 of 2012 by one Karsanbhai Karpatiya. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017 had made certain observations, more particularly in paragraph Nos.28, 29 and 30 thereof with regard to the payment of compensation and passing of fresh award. It is the case of the applicants that the aforesaid directions, which are issued by the Division Bench are not complied with till today and hence, appropriate proceedings of contempt of Court may be initiated. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh appearing for the applicants has submitted that the respondent authorities have deliberately not complied with the directions issued in the judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017, more particularly in paragraph No.28 thereof and even observations made in paragraph No.29 with regard to payment of interest @ 10% p.a. on the compensation is also not complied with. While referring to the observations and the facts recorded by the Division Bench, learned advocate Mr. While referring to the observations and the facts recorded by the Division Bench, learned advocate Mr. Shaikh has submitted that the judgement proceeds on the basis of the facts recorded in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12438 of 2012. He has invited attention of this Court to Paragraph No.2 of the judgement in this regard. It is submitted that there were six petitions, which were decided by this Court by the common judgement, wherein the first category would be of Special Civil Application Nos.12438, 12444, 12449 of 2012 and second category of Special Civil Application Nos.9570, 9571 and 9272 of 2013. He has further submitted that the petitioners had challenged the very acquisition process of the respondent authorities and the notification issued with regard to acquisition of the land dated 06.02.2012. It is submitted that ultimately, the Division Bench in paragraph No.28 had bifurcated the categories of the petitioners into two parts, (i) those petitioners, who did not accept the compensation and kept the challenge alive; and (ii) those petitioners, who have already though belatedly, accepted the compensation and also handed over the possession of the land under acquisition. 4.1 It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Shaikh that the applicants form the former class i.e. those petitioners, who did not accept the compensation and hence, as per the directions issued therein, the competent authorities are required to recompute and pass a fresh award in terms of the statutory provisions, which would include all the statutory and incidental benefits as if the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) is made on 01.09.2017. It is further submitted that in fact, for the later class of the petitioners, who have later accepted the compensation, which was offered to them, the Division Bench has directed the competent authority to pay such compensation at the compounded rate of interest. He has further submitted that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12438 of 2012 had ultimately, while passing of the judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017, only requested the Division Bench to continue the interim order dated 28.12.2016 so that they may approach the Apex Court. Ultimately, it is submitted that the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.35423 of 2017 has rejected the SLP vide order dated 22.11.2017. Ultimately, it is submitted that the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.35423 of 2017 has rejected the SLP vide order dated 22.11.2017. He has further submitted that after dismissal of the SLP, the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.3175 of 2020 seeking directions upon the respondent authorities to recompute and pass a fresh award at the prevailing market value and accordingly, to make payment of compensation. It is submitted that the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.3175 of 2020 was ultimately withdrawn and it was disposed of on 25.02.2020 with a permission to file appropriate proceedings, including the contempt proceedings and accordingly the present contempt applications are filed for compliance of the orders. It is submitted that the respondent authorities ultimately deposited the compensation in July, 2019 as per the award passed in the year 2014 i.e. after a period of more than 4 years and hence, the petitioners are entitled to interest in the alternate of passing the fresh award, as per the directions issued by this Court. Thus, he has submitted that despite the directions issued by this Court as noted hereinabove, the respondent authority, including the Railway Administration have failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.03.2022 passed in the present applications had prima facie formed that the contempt of Court is made out by the present respondents and hence, in view of the aforesaid dated 15.03.2022, the respondent authorities may be directed to comply with the directions. 5. Vehemently apposing the aforesaid contentions and submissions raised by learned advocate Mr. Shaikh, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General Mr. Devang Vyas has submitted that the present applications themselves are not maintainable as there is no willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in the judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017. He has submitted that in fact, there were six writ petitions, which were decided by the common judgement and though the facts are initially incorporated from the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12438 of 2012, ultimately the directions are issued in the writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.9570, 9571 and 9572 of 2013. He has pointed out the averments made in paragraph No.2.4 and 2.5 of the said judgement. He has pointed out the averments made in paragraph No.2.4 and 2.5 of the said judgement. It is submitted that initially, a controversy raised by the petitioners was with regard to the alignment of the dedicated corridor, which was constructed by the Railways and there were two other contentions raised with regard to incompetency in of the authorities in issuing the notification. However, finally, it is submitted that the Division Bench has declined to interfere with the notification as well as alignment aspect. He has submitted that the present applicants/petitioners have categorically challenged the notification on the ground of alignment of the Railway track, which was not favoured by the Division Bench and when such observations are made, ultimately, the petitioners requested the Division Bench that the interim order dated 28.12.2016 passed in the writ petitions may be extended till they challenge the aforesaid order before the Apex Court. He has specifically pointed out that in paragraph No.27 of the judgement, the Division Bench has referred to the aspect of prompt payment of compensation to the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.9571 and 9572 of 2013 and accordingly, it is submitted that in paragraph No.28, the Division Bench has bifurcated the categories of the petitioners of such petitions in two parts and accordingly, have issued directions to recompute and pass a fresh award. It is submitted that the aforesaid observations do not in any manner pertain to the present applicants/ petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.12438 and 12499 of 2012 and the directions are exclusively issued for the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.9571 and 9572 of 2013. He has further submitted that the award dated 24.01.2014 was ultimately passed and accordingly all the petitioners of the said writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.12438 and 12449 of 2012 were called upon to receive the amount of compensation in the year 2014 to 2019 however, they had refused to accept such compensation and in the present case, the compensation was accepted in 2019. It is submitted that none of the petitioners have assailed the award dated 24.01.2014 and once the writ petitions challenging the acquisition on the ground of alignment have failed, it is not open for them to claim such benefits in the present contempt applications. It is submitted that none of the petitioners have assailed the award dated 24.01.2014 and once the writ petitions challenging the acquisition on the ground of alignment have failed, it is not open for them to claim such benefits in the present contempt applications. He has thus, submitted that all the applicants were offered the compensation amount at the relevant time however, since the applicants have refused, they would not be entitled to any benefit, as incorporated in paragraph No.29 of the judgement of the Division Bench. 5.1 Learned Senior Advocate and ASG Mr. Vyas has further submitted that after dismissal of the SLP, the applicants had also filed Special Civil Application No.3157 of 2020, which was withdrawn with a view to file appropriate proceedings including the contempt proceedings. It is submitted that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2020 and after a period of approximately one and half years, the present applications for contempt are filed. He has further submitted that the applicants cannot take benefit of the interim order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court since the correct facts were not pointed out when such order was passed and hence, it is submitted that since there is no willful or deliberate defiance of any directions issued by this Court, the present proceedings may be dropped. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 7. As noted hereinabove, the present applicants are legal heirs of one Karsanbhai Karpatiya, who was one of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.12438 of 2012. There were six petitions, which were heard and disposed of along with captioned writ petitions by the common judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017. Both the respective parties i.e. applicants and the opponents have premised on the observations made in paragraph Nos.27, 28, 29 and 30 of the judgement. It is the case of the applicants that the directions issued in paragraph No.28 of the judgement would apply in their case i.e. the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.12438, 12449 and 12444 of 2012, whereas the opponents have contended that the directions or observations made by the Division Bench pertain to the writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.9570, 9571 and 9572 of 2013. Both the learned advocates for the respective parties have threadbare read the judgement. Both the learned advocates for the respective parties have threadbare read the judgement. It is the case of the applicants / petitioners that the respondents have violated the directions issued in paragraph No.28 as the Division Bench, while disposing of the matters, have directed the respondents to recompute and pass a fresh order. It is also contended that they are also entitled to interest on the compensation as directed by the Division Bench. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the present contempt applications, it would be apposite to reproduce the contents of paragraph Nos.27, 28, 30 of the judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017. 27. The fact that the respondents have undoubtedly failed in making prompt payment of compensation to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 9571 and 9572 of 2013, is undisputable. We have noted that the awards were passed by the competent authority under Section 20F of the Act in such cases in August 2010 and 2011 respectively. The petitions were filed before the High Court in the year 2013. Till then no compensation was paid. Much later, during the pendency of these petitions, the compensation was offered to the petitioners on different dates. We are informed that some of the petitioners have accepted such compensation and handed over the possession of the lands to the Government. Rest of the petitioners who did not accept such late compensation, possession of their lands have also been taken over. According to the Railway Ministry, the sufficient amount which would cover the total compensation awarded by the competent authority was lying in the running account of the said authority with standing instructions to release the payment from time to time as per the awards. The competent authority however has taken a stand that for want of sufficient funds, the compensation could not be paid. This is essentially the dispute between the Central Government and the State Government agencies. Whatever be the reason, the fact remains that the claimants did not receive compensation for over four to five years after the awards were passed by the competent authority. The question is what would be the effect of such delay on the part of the respondents. One possibility of course could be declaring the entire acquisition as invalid which would have drastic adverse effect on the project itself. Literally and figuratively, the Dedicated Freight Corridor project would be derailed. The question is what would be the effect of such delay on the part of the respondents. One possibility of course could be declaring the entire acquisition as invalid which would have drastic adverse effect on the project itself. Literally and figuratively, the Dedicated Freight Corridor project would be derailed. The development which has already taken place in this respect at other locations would be rendered unusable till the railways, if so advised, could restart and complete the acquisition proceedings of the very same lands. Considering such factors and larger public interest, we would consider the alternatives of moulding the relief and ensuring that to the possible extent, the concerned petitioners could be compensated in terms of money for such delay. 28. The ultimate relief that we may grant would have to be bifurcated in two parts. For those petitioners who have so far not accepted the compensation and kept their challenge alive and those who have already, though belatedly, accepted the compensation and also handed over the possession of their lands under acquisition. For the former class, which we are informed comprises of approximately 18 petitioners, without disturbing the acquisition of their lands, we direct the competent authority to recompute and pass fresh award in terms of the statutory provisions which would include all statutory and incidental benefits as if the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 20A of the Act is made on 01.09.2017. We are informed that these persons have already challenged the awards passed by the competent authority. Even after the fresh computation as provided hereinabove is done, they are not satisfied with the compensation that may become payable to them, it would be open for them to pursue their pending challenges before the Arbitrator who shall take notice of the further developments in this regard. The award on such deemed date of acquisition notification shall be passed within six months from the date of the receipt of copy of the order subject to co-operation from the concerned petitioners as well. The Railway administration shall as soon as possible after the award is passed deposit the entire amount of compensation with the competent authority who shall promptly pay over the same to the petitioners concerned. 29. The Railway administration shall as soon as possible after the award is passed deposit the entire amount of compensation with the competent authority who shall promptly pay over the same to the petitioners concerned. 29. For the latter class of the petitioners, who have accepted the compensation which was offered to them much later, the railway administration shall pay interest from the date of the award by the competent authority till actual payment of the compensation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum. We are conscious that the bank rates currently prevailing are not that high, nevertheless, we are persuaded to adopt a comparatively higher interest rate considering the gross delay exhibited by the respondents in paying the compensation and the ground realities that the prices of real estate escalate at a rate much faster than the bank rates. If the land losers were to acquire similar land in the same vicinity with similar advantages and the compensation paid to them is delayed by years together, the least that the State would be expected to offer to them is a fair increase in the compensation computed by the competent authority. In Special Civil Application No. 9570 of 2013, the petitioners have requested for the benefit of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 which the respondents have assured would follow. This may be done as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order in case of the petitioners to whom such policy applies. We have tried our best to balance the equities and at the same time protect the larger public interest. There are bound to be rough edges and areas where better solution could be suggested, nevertheless, when such conflicting interests and equities are to be balanced, a certain amount of balancing act is always permissible. 22.09.2017 30. At this stage, learned counsel Shri Dhaval Barot for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 12438, 12444 and 12449 of 2012 requested that the interim arrangement provided by the Division Bench of this Court under an order dated 28.12.2016 may be continued till 10.11.2017 to enable the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court. 22.09.2017 30. At this stage, learned counsel Shri Dhaval Barot for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 12438, 12444 and 12449 of 2012 requested that the interim arrangement provided by the Division Bench of this Court under an order dated 28.12.2016 may be continued till 10.11.2017 to enable the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court. We notice that under the said order dated 28.12.2016 passed in different Civil Applications filed by the petitioners in their respective petitions, the Division Bench had provided for following interim arrangement: “(i) The respondent authorities are permitted to carry out survey only on two ends of the subject lands and the same should be confined to two metres (JCB width) on each side. They should see that least damage should be done. (ii) The respondent authorities are permitted to place pre-cast concrete pillars in the above area where they have done the survey. (iii) By permitting the respondents to carry out the above activity, no right will be claimed by either party because of this order. (iv) Except what is permitted above, no further construction of any nature whatsoever shall be done on the subject lands till the final disposal of the main petitions.” This arrangement shall continue till 10.11.2017 in Special Civil Application Nos. 12438, 12444 and 12449 of 2012. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.” 9. When the Division Bench had started dictating the judgement, it appears from the contents of paragraph No.2 that the facts were recorded from the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12438 of 2012. The facts recorded therein suggest that the petitioners have assailed the notification dated 10.02.2009 issued by the Railways and thereafter, fresh notification was issued on 06.02.2012. All the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.9570, 9571 and 9572 of 2013 had also challenged the similar acquisition proceedings however, as observed in paragraph Nos.2.4 and 2.5 of the judgement, a distinguishing feature between the first set of the writ petitions and the second set of the writ petitions was that the lands of the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.9570, 9571 and 9572 of 2013 were situated in different area and question of abandoning the previous acquisition by the Railway and challenging the alignment of the proposed corridor was not involved. Additionally, the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.9570, 9571 and 9572 of 2013 had also raised issue of non-payment or delayed payment of compensation by the Railway authorities after issuance of the acquisition notifications. Ultimately, the acquisition proceedings were challenged on the basis of alignment and the powers of the respondent authorities issued in notification was turned down and not accepted. 10. In paragraph No.27 of the judgement, the Court has recorded or addressed the issue of Special Civil Application Nos.9571 and 9572 of 2013 and such observations have continued in paragraph No.28 also. In paragraph No.28 of the judgement, the Court had bifurcated all the petitioners into two categories. The first category is of those petitioners, who have not accepted the compensation and kept their challenge alive and second category is of those petitioners, who have already, though belatedly, accepted the compensation and also handed over the possession of the lands in questions. It is categorically observed in paragraph No.28 of the judgement that for the former class, there were approximately 18 petitioners and in those cases, it is directed that without disturbing the acquisition of the lands, the competent authorities were directed to recompute and pass a fresh award. For the later class of the petitioners, it is observed in paragraph No.29 that who have accepted the compensation, which was offered to them much later, the Railway Administration was directed to pay the interest from the date of award by the competent authority till the actual payment of the compensation on compounded rate of interest @ 10% p.a. 11. In paragraph No.30 of the judgement, as mentioned hereinabove, so far as the present applicants are concerned, who were the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.12438, 12444 and 12449 of 2012, it was requested that interim arrangement provided by the Division Bench under the order dated 28.12.2016 may be continued till 10.11.2017, to enable them to approach the Apex Court. Accordingly, in paragraph No.30 of the judgement, request was accepted and interim arrangement was further extended and all the writ petitions were disposed of being Special Civil Application Nos.12438, 12444 and 12449 of 2012. Thereafter, the SLP filed by the petitioners/applicants was dismissed. After dismissal of the aforesaid SLP, the writ petitioners again filed Special Civil Application No.3157 of 2020 by incorporating the following prayers : “7A. Thereafter, the SLP filed by the petitioners/applicants was dismissed. After dismissal of the aforesaid SLP, the writ petitioners again filed Special Civil Application No.3157 of 2020 by incorporating the following prayers : “7A. Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to recompute and pass fresh award at the present market value and to make payment of compensation immediately without further delay and to place the compliance report before this Hon’ble Court. Alternately, respondent authorities ber directed to pay compound interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the delayed payment i.e. from the date of award to actual payment. B. Be pleased to grant any further relief as may deem just, fit and proper In the interest of justice.” 12. The prayer clause would suggest that the petitioners have sought directions upon the respondent authorities to recompute and pass a fresh award as per the prevailing market value. The said writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn by the order dated 25.02.2020 by observing thus : “Learned Advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with a view to file appropriate proceedings including the contempt proceedings, as may be permissible under the law. Permission as sought for is granted. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.” 13. After the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn, approximately after a period of more than 1.5 years, the present applications were presented on 05.08.2021, as per the office note. 14. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners/claimants were also paid the amount of compensation pursuant to the award dated 24.01.2014. In case of the lands, acquired of Village Sadarpur of the petitioners, a final award of determining compensation was passed on 24.01.2014. It is further surprising and curious to note that when the writ petitions were disposed of on 21 & 22.09.2017, the present petitioners/claimants did not challenge the aforesaid award. Had that award being challenged, the Court would have passed or modified the orders accordingly. The judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017 would have been suitably worded. As the judgement suggests that the present applicants did not point out the aforesaid award and it is also undisputed that thereafter, the respondent authorities issued various notices ranging from 17.07.2014 to 07.02.2019 to the claimants to collect the compensation. The judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017 would have been suitably worded. As the judgement suggests that the present applicants did not point out the aforesaid award and it is also undisputed that thereafter, the respondent authorities issued various notices ranging from 17.07.2014 to 07.02.2019 to the claimants to collect the compensation. The present applicants/petitioners refused to accept the compensation on the ground of pendency of the writ petitions. After the writ petitions were disposed of on 21 & 22.09.2017, it appears that thereafter, no attempts were made by the applicants to clarify or getting the judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017 reviewed. Even after the withdrawal of the subsequent writ petition on 25.02.2020, the applicants went into slumber and filed the present proceedings after one and half years. 15. Thus, looking to the facts and nature of the proceedings, the contents and the directions issued in the judgement dated 21 & 22.09.2017, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have willfully or deliberately violated any of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. In fact, since there is dispute with regard to observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph No.28, it was always open for the applicant-claimants to seek clarification and only after ambiguity is removed, the specific directions are issued. Hence, the Court while examining the contempt proceedings, cannot clarify the ambiguity in the order. The Apex Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004 (7) S.C.C. 261 has held thus : “8. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. It shall deal with the application in its proper perspective in accordance with law afresh. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding acceptability or otherwise of the application for initiation of contempt proceedings.” 16. Thus, in wake of the rival claims made by the respective parties with regard to the interpretation of the order, this Court, while dealing with an application for contempt cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged, and it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. Neither this Court can test the correctness or give additional direction or delete any direction. The contempt proceedings cannot be initiated if the order or the directions are ambiguous, and are convoluted, and the Court cannot undertake a clarification exercise. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings, and such exercise is impermissible and indefensible. 17. Under the circumstances, the present contempt proceedings appear to be ill-conceived and hence, the present applications are dismissed. The contempt proceedings are closed. 18. Registry to place a copy of this order in the connected matter.