Bombay High Court
M/S. Chinchwad Devasthan Trust, ... vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ... on 12 October, 2017
1 CP 32-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.32 OF 2017
M/s.Chinchwad Devasthan Trust
A Public religious Trust, regd at
PTR No.A-591/Pune, Through
POA holder Apex Property
Consultants LLP having regd
address at 1, Adams Court, Opp
Hotel Mahabaleshwar, Baner Road
Pune - 411 045 .. Petitioner
Versus
1) Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation Through Commissioner
PCMC Office, Mumbai Pune Road,
Pimpri Road, Pune 411018.
2) The Collector, Pimpri Chinchwad
having its office at Collector Office,
Pune 411001.
3) The Divisional Commissioner
Land Acquisition Department
having its office at Divisional
Commissioner, Vidhan Bhavan
Compound, Pune 411001. .. Respondents
...
Mr.Tejas Deshpande for the petitioner.
Mr.P.G. Sawant, AGP for the State.
Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Marne for
respondent no.1.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2017 01:25:56 :::
2 CP 32-17
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ.
& N.M. JAMDAR, J.
RESERVED ON: 2nd AUGUST, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON: 12th OCTOBER, 2017
JUDGMENT (Per Dr.MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ):
1 This petition is filed by the petitioner -
complainant Trust seeking action against the respondent
officials for not complying with the order dated 2 nd May 2015.
It is necessary to bring on record certain EVENTS WHICH
occurred after passing of the above said order, which led to
filing of the present Contempt Petition.
2 Land admeasuring about 1,05,400 sq.m situated
at Bhosari within the jurisdiction of the Pimpri Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation belongs to the petitioner Trust. In the
year 1997 by an agreement dated 8th July 1997, petitioner
trust handed over the above land to the possession of
respondent no.1. Inspite of proceedings under Land
Tilak
3 CP 32-17
Acquisition Act being initiated, the respondent no.1 failed to
pass award or grant compensation or TDR in respect of the
above said land. Therefore, petitioner trust filed Writ
Petition No.7494 of 2013 wherein the Division Bench
ultimately held that within two years of time, the fourth
respondent Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation therein
has to take recourse to the proceedings of compulsory
acquisition under Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "2013 Act"). Inspite of
persistent follow-up by the contempt petitioner seeking
computation of compensation in terms of new Enactment or
to grant TDR in lieu of compensation, first respondent failed
to complete the Land Acquisition proceedings under 2013
Act nor restored back possession of the land to the petitioner
Trust nor offered TDR to the Trust.
3 On 3rd August 2016, when petitioner Trust again
addressed a letter to the respondent no.1 seeking compliance
of directions of the order dated 2nd May 2014, respondent
Tilak
4 CP 32-17
applied for extension of three months time on the ground that
award is almost ready. However, the respondent no.1 failed
to comply with the said undertaking of completing the award
process nor paying compensation nor offering TDR nor
restoring back possession of the land. Therefore, the present
Contempt Petition came to be filed.
4 According to first respondent, contempt petition is
bad for non-joinder of necessary party, and so also joining
parties who are not required to be impleaded. It is brought
on record by the first respondent that on or before 2 nd May
2016, they had to complete the acquisition proceedings
within two years. However, same came to be extended upto
31st December 2016. Within this time, the first respondent
had to restore the land to the petitioner. On 10 th January
2017, a contempt was filed complaining non-compliance of
order by handing over back the possession of the land to the
petitioner. They rely upon Rule 21 of Chapter XVII of Bombay
High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, and contend that
contempt proceedings cannot be alternative proceedings for
Tilak
5 CP 32-17
execution of orders. Civil Application St.No.634 of 2017
came to be filed on 9th January 2017 by the State Government
wherein extension of time for compliance is sought.
5 The total land owned by the petitioner which was
handed over to the first respondent is about 1,05,400 sq.m.
Out of this, 56,864.70 sq.m is coming under reservation as
per the Development Plan (DP) of first respondent.
26,500.30 sq.m is covered by water of natural lake.
Therefore, it is under the ownership of the Government.
Portion of unreserved land which is in possession of first
respondent Corporation is only 22,035 sq.m.
6 So far as first respondent is concerned, they
requested Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) concerned
to seek extension of time by six months in order to enable
Corporation to seek approval of the General Body and
Standing Committee of the Corporation for deposit of the
amount directed by Divisional Commissioner, Pune on 28th
December 2016. Decision to deposit compensation of
Tilak
6 CP 32-17
Rs.45,05,24,387/- in respect of 56,864.70 sq.m which is a
reserved land, was made. On 24th January 2017, a cheque for
the above said amount is submitted to the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. Final award came to be passed on 25 th
January 2017 so far as the above measurement is concerned.
Therefore, this part of the judgment dated 2 nd May 2014 is
completed by acquiring the land.
7 In respect of this land admeasuring 56,000 sq.m
and odd, final notification was issued on 18 th May 2009 and
so far as 22,035 sq.m non development land on 10 th June
2010, final notification under Section 6 was issued.
8 The amount of compensation determined as per the
award in respect of DP land was Rs.19.52 crores, and non-DP
land was Rs.4,47,29,752/-. Special Land Acquisition Officer had
to complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of non-DP
land and publish the final award within 2 years. Proceedings
were delayed for reasons not known to the Corporation, is the
contention. However, on 28th May 2012 when Municipal
Tilak
7 CP 32-17
Corporation was directed to deposit Rs. 4 crores and odd in
respect of non-DP land when the draft awards were sent to
the office of Divisional Commissioner, Divisional
Commissioner, Pune raised few queries in respect of the draft
awards by letter dated 7th July 2012 opining that the award
had to be published in respect of non DP-land on or before
14th June 2012 and Divisional Commissioner was not given
enough time for scrutiny of the said award by expressing
displeasure about the delay in sending the draft award. The
correspondence between SLAO and the Divisional
Commissioner took some time. However, SLAO did not
communicate anything to Municipal Corporation about
lapsing of the acquisition proceedings. In the joint meeting of
first respondent, Collector, Deputy Director of Town
Planning, Superintendent of Land Records, a decision was
taken on 10th July 2012 that the entire land claimed by the
petitioner actually belongs to the Government and therefore,
directed the proposal to be sent to the Divisional
Commissioner, Pune, seeking advise so as to record the name
of the Government in respect of the entire land. Therefore,
Tilak
8 CP 32-17
the Corporation - first respondent filed Appeal before the
Superintendent of Land Records challenging the mutation
entry recording the name of the petitioner in the record of
rights so far the entire land. The same came to be dismissed
by Superintendent of Land Records on 8th December 2014.
Thereafter, Municipal Corporation filed Appeal against the
order of the Superintendent of Land Records before Dy.
Director of land Records, and the same was pending when the
judgment came to be passed by this Court on 2 nd May 2014
directing completion of proceedings within two years.
Thereafter, on 24th September 2014, first respondent
requested SLAO to initiate and complete the process, again
reminded the Collector, Pune on 15th November 2014 for
issuance of necessary directions for completion of the land
acquisition proceedings. Special Land Acquisition Officer on
28th November 2014 sought clarifications with regard to the
acquisition proceedings from the Collector, Pune in respect of
both DP land and non-DP land. In so far as non-DP land, the
Land Acquisition Officer informed that the draft award was
forwarded for approval on 17th November 2011 in which the
Tilak
9 CP 32-17
compensation amount was determined as Rs.4,31,82,708/-.
By letter dated 11th December 2016, SLAO informed the first
respondent that approximate amount is Rs.19.52 crores and
requested to deposit the same. On 18 th December 2014, a
letter was sent to the Dy. Director, Town Planning of 1st
respondent informing for the first time that acquisition
proceedings has lapsed for not passing final award on or
before 14th June 2012. On 18th December 2014, a letter was
written by SLAO pointing out that Municipal Corporation
should submit a fresh proposal in accordance with the
provisions of 2013 Act. In the mean while, one Pratik
Choradia claiming be the Power of Attorney holder of
petitioner submitted a letter on 7th February 2015
misrepresenting the Municipal Corporation that
compensation of Rs.250 crores would be payable in the event
of acquisition of entire land, and raised a query as to whether
there was a budgetary provision for payment of
compensation, or whether Municipal Corporation would
grant TDR. Since the acquisition proceedings lapsed in
respect of non-DP land, a guidance was sought from Principal
Tilak
10 CP 32-17
Secretary, Urban Development by letter dated 15 th April 2015
whether Municipal Corporation should deposit the amount of
compensation, or whether TDR should be granted. No reply
came to be received. In the mean time, Municipal
Corporation filed Appeal, as stated above, when they learnt
that the entire land was owned by the State Government.
Period of two years granted by the High Court came to an end
on 2nd May 2016. Civil Application No.1592 of 2016 came to
be filed by the State, and the same came to be allowed
extending time upto 31st December 2016. Only on 18th
December 2013, SLAO informed the Corporation that
acquisition proceedings in respect of non-DP land lapsed so
far as 22,035 sq.m and the balance land was covered by
water, and the ownership of the said area would be that of
State Government in terms of Section 20 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code. Municipal Corporation was under a
bonafide belief that acquisition proceedings were still in force
when they sought guidance from Principal Secretary, Urban
Development on 15th April 2015. The State Government took
a stand that entire land admeasuring 1,05,400 sq.m falls in
Tilak
11 CP 32-17
the ownership of the State Government. Under these
circumstances, Corporation was not sure about the further
course of action i.e. in which direction they ought to have
proceeded.
9 By judgment dated 2nd May 2014, it was observed
that Writ Petition was disposed of by granting time of two
years to the Municipal Corporation to complete the
acquisition. This created an impression that the first
respondent was required to ensure that the Land Acquisition
proceedings already initiated in respect of both DP and non-
DP should be completed within two years. This is clear from
the letter dated 24th January 2017 where the Municipal
Corporation requested the SLAO to complete the acquisition
proceedings in respect of non-DP land. The State
Government has taken a stand that entire land is owned by
the State Government and necessary directions were issued
for correction of mutation entry. Therefore, Corporation was
proceeding in the direction of getting mutation entry in the
name of the petitioner corrected by filing proceedings before
Tilak
12 CP 32-17
the Sub-Divisional Officer. The State Government has filed
affidavit in reply before the Dy. Director Land Records on 24 th
January 2017 that the entire land is owned by the State
Government, and the name of the petitioner has been
erroneously noted by order dated 16th July 2008.
10 In the above circumstances, Corporation was
under a bonafide belief that acquisition proceeding was still
under the process, and could be completed by publication of
final award. Now, it is clear that the land acquisition
proceeding in respect of non-DP land have lapsed and that
the Municipal Corporation is required to submit a fresh
proposal for initiation of proceedings and the proposal is sent
on 10th April 2017 for acquisition of entire non-DP land
admeasuring 48,535.30 sq.m.
11 As a matter of fact, according to first respondent,
the entire land claimed by the petitioner did consist of large
natural lake. The DP land is actually the land consisting the
said lake. With the passage of time, the size of the lake has
Tilak
13 CP 32-17
shrunk and the non-DP land is actually the land becoming
available on account of shrinking of the lake. Therefore, the
alleged claim of the petitioner in respect of entire land (DP +
non-DP) is highly disputable. According to them,
compensation also cannot be paid till the dispute about the
title is decided. It is further stated that Municipal
Corporation has spent huge funds on the development of non-
DP land, and the Corporation has leveled and beautified the
entire land surrounding the lake wherein a meditation centre
with the access through the non-DP land is constructed for
the usage of not only the residents of the locality, but to other
visitors. Entire land is in possession of the Corporation since
1997. At this stage, it is highly undesirable to return the
non-DP land to the petitioner who has engaged one of the
leading developers as its Power of Attorney. For no fault of
municipal corporation, they are blamed for non-compliance of
non-DP land. The State Government has not replied the
letter dated 15th April 2015. Therefore, the Municipal
Corporation cannot be compelled to return the non-DP land
till decision of the Appeal by the Dy. Director of Land Records,
Tilak
14 CP 32-17
and even after the disposal of the Appeal, the Municipal
Corporation must be given a fresh opportunity of completing
the acquisition proceedings so far as non-DP land. About
60% of the land has been acquired and 20% of the land is
covered by water. The acquisition proceedings for the
balance 20% of the land are initiated by Municipal
Corporation by sending a fresh proposal acquisition of non-
DP land would be in the interest of the petitioner rather than
restoration of the same since petitioner would not be in a
position to develop the non-DP land on account of the
pendency of the proposal of the Corporation for reservation
of the non-DP land for "beautification of the lake".
12 Bringing on record above facts, they contend that
there is neither intention nor any will on the part of the
respondents to violate the order of the Hon'ble Court.
Additional affidavit of one Mr.Prakash Thakur Dy. Director of
Town Planning is also placed on record. In terms of order of
the High Court, Appeal No.9 of 2016 came to be decided by
the Deputy Director, Land Records on 6 th June 2017 allowing
Tilak
15 CP 32-17
the Appeal of the Corporation by setting aside the orders
passed by Superintendent of Land Records, Raigad dated 8 th
December 2014. The order of the City Survey Officer
mutating the name of the petitioner in the record of rights
dated 4th August 2008 is also cancelled. By this order, the
Property Card bearing City Survey No.4579 entering the
name of the petitioner is also cancelled. Measurement Map
bearing registration No. 2827 of 2007 is also cancelled.
Under these circumstances, the land in question is no longer
owned by the petitioner. Therefore, necessity to acquire any
portion of the land would not arise. They have also
addressed a letter to cancel the award dated 25 th January
2017. Under these circumstances, implementation of
judgment dated 2nd May 2014 is not possible.
13 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pimpri Pune has
also filed affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4.
After narrating the order dated 2 nd May 2014, they have
placed on record the details of the application for extension of
time which was extended upto 31st December 2016. After
Tilak
16 CP 32-17
completing all technical procedure regarding draft award
under DP proposal, it was placed for approval, and approval
was received on 28th December 2016. The SLAO directed first
respondent Corporation to deposit the approved draft award
amount as per letter dated 28 th December 2016. At that
stage, at the request of the Corporation, SLAO applied to the
High Court to extend the time for declaration of award for
further six months so that they would be able to deposit the
amount. On 25th January 2017, approved draft award was
received and then the award was passed on 25 th January
2017 in respect of 56,864.70 sq.m. They also brought to the
notice with regard to two portions of land to be acquired, one
is DP proposal and another under non-DP proposal. The
award declared on 25th January 2017 pertains to DP proposal.
So far as non-DP proposal is concerned, it lapsed on 14 th June
2012, and Corporation had to submit a fresh land acquisition
proposal as per the new law of 2013 in a prescribed format
along with the necessary document. The SLAO informed first
respondent the time frame directed by the High Court by an
order dated 2nd May 2014. Award for non-DP amount could
Tilak
17 CP 32-17
not be passed since there was no proposal for fresh land
acquisition.
14 The point that would arise for our consideration is
whether there is intentional violation or disrespect to the
directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.7497 of 2013. In
the normal legal battle or suit/Appeal, the parties who come
to Court are the parties to the proceedings against whom
such relief is sought and who are interested in the matter
have to be necessarily heard, and the Court has to adjudicate
the dispute by a decision since parties are interested in the
decision pertaining to a particular relief sought in a legal
proceeding. However, the Court which deals with the
Contempt Petition against a person cannot apply the same
yardstick. Since the person against whom contempt is
initiated, cannot be equated with the parties fighting their
personal cause or interest in a particular matter seeking
adjudication of the dispute. It is expected that the contempt
matter be decided without dealing with the personal interest
of the parties though it is a contempt against the Court. The
Tilak
18 CP 32-17
jurisdiction of the Contempt Court therefore, cannot be
invoked for the purpose of appeasing vindictive motive of a
party, but it has to be only to uphold the Rule of law. It is
well settled that the Majesty of Law and dignity of Rule of
Law has to be maintained. In a contempt proceeding, the role
of the party who comes before the Court espouing the so-
called violation of the directions of the Court which comes in
the way of majesty of the Court or rule of law, is that of only
an informant. Once the informant brings to the notice of the
Court, the facts revealing the alleged wilful disobedience of
an order or direction, his duty ends. Therefore, he proceeds
with the matter only for the purpose of assisting the Court
during the proceedings at the instance of the Court.
Ultimately, it lies within the discretion of the Court to act or
not to act on the material brought to the notice of the Court
by the complainant. Once complainant brings to the notice of
the Court the alleged violation of the direction or order, it
becomes a matter between the Court and the contemner. The
duty of the informant ends once the fact of disobedience is
brought to the notice of the Court. It is well settled that the
Tilak
19 CP 32-17
contempt proceedings and the jurisdiction of the Court in
contempt proceedings is not adversarial in nature. The party
or the subordinate Court which brings the contumacious
conduct of the alleged contemner can never be equated with
the status of a litigant in the normal proceedings. Contempt
jurisdiction cannot be invoked to wreck personal vengeance
against the contemners.
15 It is useful to rely upon the following judgments
to understand what exactly amounts to civil contempt.
16 In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha
and Ors.1 the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
concept of 'wilful disobedience' of an order of the Court. It
was stated that `wilful' means an act or omission which is
done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something
the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do
something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad
purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. According
1(2003) 11 SCC 1,
Tilak
20 CP 32-17
to the Court, it signifies the act done with evil intent or with a
bad motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act or
omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case.
17 In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar
and Ors.1 it was held that for holding a person to have
committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful
disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it
was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may
amount to contempt. It was further observed that issuance of
notice for contempt of Court and power to punish are having
far reaching consequences, and as such, they should be
resorted to only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of
the court's order is made out. A petitioner who complains
breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or
contumacious disobedience of the Court's order and if such
allegation is proved, contempt can be said to have been made
out, not otherwise. The Court noted that power to punish for
1[1999 (7) SCC 569]
Tilak
21 CP 32-17
contempt is intended to maintain effective legal system. It is
exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.
18 In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh
and Ors.1, the Supreme Court held that the Contempt of
Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for
securing confidence of people in the administration of justice.
If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and
unambiguous and not capable of more than one
interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would
amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such
a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become
the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own
understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible
defence.
19 It was observed that power to punish a person for
contempt is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of
Judiciary but that by itself operates as a string of caution and
cannot be used unless the Court is satisfied beyond doubt that
1(2002 (4) SCC 21)
Tilak
22 CP 32-17
the person has deliberately and intentionally violated the
order of the Court. The power under the Act must be
exercised with utmost care and caution and sparingly in the
larger interest of the society and for proper administration of
justice delivery system. Mere disobedience of an order is
enough to hold a person guilty of civil contempt. The element
of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home
the charge within the meaning of the Act.
20 In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v.
Raghabendra Singh and Ors.,1 the Supreme Court
considered several cases and observed that wilful and
deliberate act of violation of interim order passed by a
competent Court would amount to contempt of Court.
21 In Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. United India
Insurance Co.Ltd2, in paragraph nos.15 and 17, the Court
observed as follows:
1(2007) 11 SCC 374
2 (2010) 12 SCC 770
Tilak
23 CP 32-17
"15. the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly
postulates the existence of only the following
preconditions before a person can be held to have
committed civil contempt:
(i) There must be a judgment or order or decree or
direction or writ or other process of a court; or an
undertaking given to a court;
(ii) The judgment etc. must be of the court and
undertaking must have been given to a court;
(iii) There must be a disobedience to such
judgment,etc. or breach of such undertaking;
(iv) The disobedience or breach, as the case
may be, must be wilful."
22. This now leads us to the next question and a
more relevant one, as to whether a proceeding for
contempt initiated against the appellant can be held
to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption
and inference drawn from facts and circumstances of
the instant case. In our considered opinion, the
answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the
well-settled legal position reflected in a catena of
decisions of this court that contempt of a civil nature
can be held to have been made out only if there has
been a wilful disobedience of the order and even
though there may be disobedience, yet if the same
does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful
disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to
have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of
more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of
consequences, non-compliance of the same cannot be
held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to
make out a case of contempt entailing the serious
consequence including imposition of punishment.
However, when the Courts are confronted with a
question as to whether a given situation could be
treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case
of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance,
howsoever articulate it may be, will obviously depend
on the facts and circumstances of a particular case;
but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct
Tilak
24 CP 32-17
to be too speculative based on assumption as the
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 clearly postulates and
emphasizes that the ingredient of wilful disobedience
must be there before anyone can be hauled up for the
charge of contempt of a civil nature."
22 In Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj & ors 1, the Supreme
Court observed as under:
"Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be
established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'.
The word 'wilful' introduces a mental element and
hence, requires looking into the mind of
person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an
indication of one's state of mind. 'Wilful' means
knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and
deliberate with full knowledge of consequences
flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental,
bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.
Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or
negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad
purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly,
obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is to be
distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not
include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The
deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows
what he is doing and intends to do the same.
Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil
motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of
an order, but such disobedience is the result of some
compelling circumstances under which it was not
possible for the contemnor to comply with the order,
the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or
sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt
involves a degree of default or misconduct".
23 In the above background, we have to see whether
there is wilful disobedience or violation of the order or
1 (2014) 16 SCC 209
Tilak
25 CP 32-17
directions of the Court by the respondents in Writ Petition
No.7497 of 2013. The directions in the said Writ Petition are
in terms of order dated 2nd May 2014 which are as under :
"(i) We grant time of two years from today to
the fourth Respondent - Municipal Corporation to
take recourse to the proceedings of the
compulsory acquisition in respect of the land
subject matter of agreement dated 8th July, 1997;
(ii) If the award under the relevant law is not
made within a period of two years from today, on
expiry of the period of three months from the said
period of two years, the Municipal Corporation shall
restore the possession of the land subject matter of
Petition to the Petitioner. While restoring the said
land, the Municipal Corporation will have to restore
the same to its original condition as on the date of
the said Agreement;
(iii) In the event, the fourth Respondent is in
position to offer TDR to the Petitioner before the
completion of acquisition within the stipulated
period of two years, it will be open for the fourth
Respondent to move this Court for modification of
the directions issued as above;
(iv) We make it clear that we have made no
adjudication on the disputed questions raised by the
State Government as well as by the Municipal
Corporation as regards the title of the Petitioner to a
part of the land subject matter of the said
agreement. The said issue will have to be resolved as
observed earlier;
(v) We partly allow the Petition on above terms;
(vi) Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of
this order."
Tilak
26 CP 32-17
24 From the above judgment, it is made clear that
the dispute is with regard to a portion of the land, which
according to the authorities, seems to be the land of the State
Government. The Division Bench had made it clear that
while making an award of grant of compensation, it is for the
Collector or the SLAO to decide whether petitioner is entitled
to receive any compensation and to what extent. The award
will also contain statement as regards the exact area which is
the subject matter of acquisition. The Division Bench made it
clear that they were not deciding the issue whether the
petitioner is an absolute owner of the entire land, the subject
matter of the said agreement, since such issue will be taken
care of during the acquisition proceedings, if any. Apparently,
the agreement is between the petitioner trust and the
municipal corporation of city of Pimpri. It was in respect of
1,05,400 sq.m. Though the Director, Town Planning had
fixed valuation of the land, the resolution of the general body
of the municipal corporation records that compensation could
not be paid as the petitioner was unable to produce the
Tilak
27 CP 32-17
documents of title in relation to the said land. However, a
notification dated 18th May 2009 was issued under sub-
section (4) of Section 126 of Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 in respect of City Survey no.4579 which corresponds to
Survey No.1. The SLAO filed an affidavit before the Division
Bench on 29th October 2013 that after publication of the
notification on 18th May 2009 in relation to an area of
22,035.31 sq.m, award was not passed on the basis of the
said notification published on 10th June 2010. Therefore, in
terms of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, acquisition
proceedings came to be lapsed.
25 With regard to Civil Suit No.685/2003 in respect
of part of the land covered by the agreement was subject to
condition of the petitioner withdrawing the said suit. The
suit came to be disposed of. It is also noted in the judgment
of the Division Bench that an Appeal came to be preferred
before the Superintendent of Land Records challenging the
order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 29 th August 2013.
Tilak
28 CP 32-17
In terms of the said challenge, the ownership of the petitioner
in respect of part of the land was surrendered by the
petitioner. The Government had to decide the said Appeal,
was the contention since the Corporation was not in a
position to grant TDR or FSI in respect of the entire land.
26 It is not in dispute that land admeasuring
56,864.70 sq.m. out of 1,05,400 sq.m was handed over to
first respondent Corporation in terms of reservation under the
Development Plan. Out of the balance, the unreserved land
which is in possession of the first respondent is only 22,035
sq.m, and the balance of 26,500.30 is covered by natural
lake. So far as the ownership of the petitioner on this land
even at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition, a cloud was
cast. The said cloud is still in existence since there is no
adjudication finally opining that petitioners are neither the
absolute owners of the land or they are the persons having
interest in the land who are either entitled to receive the
compensation or restoration of the land in question.
Tilak
29 CP 32-17
27 Six months extension was sought by the
Corporation requesting the SLAO to do the needful before the
Court for the purpose of approval of the General body and
Standing Committee of the Corporation to deposit the
amount directed by Divisional Commissioner, Pune by order
dated 28th December 2016. However, the time that was
extended to complete the process of acquisition of land was
31st December 2016. Final award came to be made on 25th
January 2017. This would go to show that there was no
intention to disobey or violate the orders of the Court to
comply with the directions of the order or the judgment. By
order dated 25th January 2017, award also came to be passed.
It shows passing of the award was not within the hands of the
1st respondent since they were intimated to deposit Rs.45
crores and odd only on 28th December 2016 within a month
from thereafter. A cheque for the said amount was submitted
to SLAO. In order to hold a person as a contemner and take
action against the said contemner, it is not just violation or
disobedience to the directions or order of the Court, but it has
Tilak
30 CP 32-17
to be wilful disobedience which means intentionally
disrespecting or acting in a way which lowers the dignity and
majesty of the Court. The procedural hurdles which is
common in any public office seems to be the reason for the
delay in complying with the directions apart from
administrative approval and other requirements to pay the
money towards the compensation.
28 Apparently, so far as non-DP land, there was no
completion of the acquisition proceedings. Acquisition
proceedings was not in the hands of the first respondent. It
had to be completed by SLAO way back in 2012. There was a
direction to deposit Rs.Four crores towards non-DP land.
However, at the time of approval of the draft awards,
Divisional Commissioner, Pune raised queries opining that
award was not published on or before 14th June 2012 in
terms of statutory provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
Divisional Commissioner also was of the opinion that enough
time for scrutiny of the award was not given. Apparently,
SLAO did not communicate that there was lapsing of the
Tilak
31 CP 32-17
acquisition proceedings. In the joint meeting held in July
2012, queries were made regarding the ownership or interest
of the petitioners in the land in question. The Appeal against
the order of the Superintendent before Dy. Director of Land
Records was pending when the judgment in question on 2 nd
May 2014 was filed. Thereafter, there were correspondence
requesting completion of land acquisition process. However,
on account of SLAO seeking clarification from the Collector in
respect of both DP and non-DP land, there was some delay.
Only on 18th December 2014, it came to the knowledge of the
first respondent that acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
Immediately, a letter was written to SLAO for initiation of
fresh proposal in terms of 2013 Act. An Appeal came to be
filed when the first respondent learnt that the entire land was
owned by the State Government. At the instance of first
respondent, extension was granted upto 31 st December 2016.
According to first respondent, they were under the bonafide
impression that the acquisition proceedings were still in force
when they sought guidance from Principal Secretary, Urban
Development on 15th April 2015. However, Government took
Tilak
32 CP 32-17
a stand that the entire land admeasuring 1,05,400 sq.m falls
in the ownership of the State Government. If such being the
position, the first respondent as local authority which also
deals with the money of the public which is either received as
taxes or from the consolidated fund cannot recklessly proceed
with the matter by paying the compensation or restoring
possession of the land. It is also on record that only in the
year 2008-09, the name of the petitioner came to be
incorporated in the land revenue records and they were not
able to produce any document substantiating that they have
right, title and interest to have their name incorporated in the
land records. Under these circumstances, definitely, this
Court cannot opine that there was wilful disobedience or
violation of the directions or order of the Court to take severe
action against contemner for contempt of Court. Therefore,
we are of the opinion the proceedings deserves to be dropped
and accordingly, dropped.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Tilak
