Supreme Court dismisses contempt petition in land acquisition case: Soorajmull Nagarmull vs. Brijesh Mehrotra (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 777

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a party be held in contempt of court for not following directions if they have initiated fresh proceedings as per the court’s order? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a contempt petition arising from a land acquisition dispute. The core issue was whether the respondents wilfully violated the Supreme Court’s orders regarding compensation for land acquired from the petitioner. The bench comprised Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The petitioner, M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull, owned 29.38 acres of land in Bhagalpur, Bihar. The land was initially acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The first notification for acquisition was issued on 25 March 1981, and possession was taken on 20 August 1981. Subsequently, the land was declared a protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, through a notification on 4 September 1990.

As no award was passed following the initial notification, a fresh notification was issued on 24 May 1995, and another on 17 August 1996. The subsequent notifications were challenged in the High Court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner in 1998. The respondents argued that the initial acquisition had lapsed due to the award not being passed within the statutory period. The petitioner also filed a writ petition seeking the release of the land. A separate writ petition was also filed by the Divisional Forest Officer challenging the state’s action to withdraw acquisition proceedings. Additionally, a public interest litigation was filed to protect the forest.

While these petitions were pending, an award was passed on 27 September 2006, purportedly based on the 1981 notification. The High Court held that despite the delay, the land’s possession and title vested with the State. This decision led to the matter reaching the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10394-10396 of 2011. On 17 August 2015, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner’s appeals, stating that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would apply. The court declared the land acquisition proceedings lapsed and directed the State to initiate fresh proceedings within six weeks.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially ruled in favor of the petitioner in 1998, but later, when the matter came up again, held that the land’s possession and title vested with the State, despite the delay in passing the award. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on 17 August 2015, declared the land acquisition proceedings lapsed and directed the State to start fresh proceedings.

Following the Supreme Court’s order, the petitioner filed contempt petitions alleging wilful violation of the court’s directions. During the pendency of these contempt petitions, a fresh notification was issued under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). Consequently, the contempt petitions were disposed of on 29 August 2016. The State filed applications seeking correction of the order dated 29 August 2016, which were dismissed on 5 January 2017.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Key provisions include:

• Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for land acquisition.
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.
• Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section pertains to the publication of a preliminary notification for land acquisition under the 2013 Act.
• Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927: This section deals with the declaration of protected forests.
• Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section provides for special provisions for urgent land acquisition.
• Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section allows for reference to the competent authority for disputes regarding compensation.
• Section 66 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section deals with the constitution of the competent authority.
• Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section provides for appeals to the High Court against the authority’s decision.

The 2013 Act was enacted to ensure fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, and it replaced the 1894 Act in many respects. The Supreme Court’s order of 17 August 2015, held that the 2013 Act would apply to the case, as the State had not progressed beyond making a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, pursuant to the subsequent notification.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The respondents wilfully violated the Supreme Court’s directions by not paying compensation as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act.
• The land was acquired using the urgency clause, and despite directions for compensation under Section 40 of the 2013 Act, the respondents passed the award treating the land as agricultural forest land.
• The acquired land was used for constructing offices and residential buildings, yet it was wrongly categorized as agricultural forest land.
• The applications for correction of the order dated 29 August 2016 were dismissed, and the benefits under Section 40 of the 2013 Act were not granted.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• A fresh notification was issued as per the directions of the court in the order dated 17.08.2015, which was also declared lapsed by the Court in the order dated 10.02.2020.
• A fresh notification was issued on 14 February 2020 under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, and an award was passed on 12 November 2020, following due procedure.
• There was no violation of the court’s directions, and the petitioner is attempting to enlarge the scope of the directions under the guise of contempt.
• The respondents contended that the court had not expressed any opinion on the nature of the land and had left all the issues open.
• If the petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation determination, they have a remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
• The respondents argued that they had not invoked the urgency clause in the latest notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, and as such, the benefits under Section 40 of the 2013 Act would not arise.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue before the court was whether the respondents had wilfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its previous orders.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & Ors. [ (1996) 6 SCC 291 ] – Supreme Court of India: The Court observed that once an order is passed by the Government based on the directions of the Court, a fresh cause of action arises to seek redressal in an appropriate forum.
• Delhi Development Authority v. Mahender Singh & Anr. [ (2009) 5 SCC 339 ] – Supreme Court of India: The Court observed that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code and common law principles cannot be extended contrary to the provisions of the statute.
• R.N. Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors. [ (2000) 4 SCC 400 ] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that a decree obtained under the Land Acquisition Act is an executable decree, and contempt cannot be maintained for non-compliance. It also observed that the weapon of contempt is not to be misused and is to be exercised for the maintenance of the court’s dignity.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for land acquisition.
• Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section provides for special provisions for urgent land acquisition.
• Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section allows for reference to the competent authority for disputes regarding compensation.
• Section 66 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section deals with the constitution of the competent authority.
• Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section provides for appeals to the High Court against the authority’s decision.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 291]* to state that when the government acts on the court’s directions, a fresh cause of action arises, implying that the petitioner should seek remedies under the new proceedings rather than through contempt.
• The Court cited Delhi Development Authority v. Mahender Singh & Anr. [(2009) 5 SCC 339]* to emphasize that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code, and common law principles cannot override its provisions. This reinforced the idea that the petitioner’s remedies lie within the framework of the 2013 Act.
• The Court referred to R.N. Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 400]* to highlight that a decree under the Land Acquisition Act is executable and that contempt is not the appropriate remedy for non-compliance. It also cautioned against the misuse of contempt proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the respondents had initiated fresh land acquisition proceedings as per the court’s earlier directions. The Court emphasized that the respondents had issued a fresh notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act and had also passed an award. The Court noted that the urgency clause was not invoked in the fresh notification, thus negating the applicability of Section 40 of the 2013 Act. The Court also highlighted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act to seek reference to the competent authority for any grievances regarding the compensation award. The Court was also clear that contempt proceedings are not the correct way to address grievances related to land acquisition compensation. The court also emphasized that contempt power should be exercised judiciously.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Initiating fresh proceedings as per court directions can negate contempt charges, even if the outcome is not as desired by the petitioner.
• The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, provides a complete code for land acquisition and compensation, and remedies should be sought within its framework.
• Contempt of court is not the appropriate remedy for disputes related to land acquisition compensation; alternative remedies under the relevant statute should be pursued.
• The urgency clause under Section 40 of the 2013 Act is not automatically applicable in all land acquisitions, and it must be specifically invoked for its benefits to apply.
• Courts will not express opinions on the merits of compensation awards in contempt proceedings, especially when alternative remedies are available.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment, other than dismissing the contempt petitions. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the categorization of the land or the determination of market value in the award dated 12.11.2020, and that all issues were left open.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a party initiates fresh proceedings as per the directions of the court, they cannot be held in contempt for not following the original directions, especially when the relevant statute provides alternative remedies. This decision reinforces the principle that contempt jurisdiction should be used sparingly and that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking contempt relief. The judgment also clarifies that the benefits under Section 40 of the 2013 Act are not automatically applicable and depend on the invocation of the urgency clause.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions filed by M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull, holding that the respondents had not wilfully violated the court’s directions. The Court found that the respondents had initiated fresh land acquisition proceedings as per the court’s earlier orders and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the judicious use of contempt powers.