Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Rama Rani Paul vs P. Mohangandhi on 4 August, 2023
248
SS
04.08.2023. C.P.A.N 1044 of 2018
Ct. In
759 WPA 19603 of 2015
Smt. Rama Rani Paul
Vs.
P. Mohangandhi
Mr. Sudeep Sanyal
Mr. Snehasis Jana
Mr. Dibashis Basu
...For the applicant.
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Aniruddha Sen
...For the contemnor.
1.
The applicant is seeking contempt proceedings
against the alleged contemnor for violation of
order dated December 13, 2017, passed by the
Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 19603(W) of
2015 (Smt Rama Rani Paul -versus-P.
Mohangandhi).
2. The applicant in the present case is one Smt
Rama Rani Paul. The alleged contemnor is the
Land Acquisition Collector, Paschim Medinipur.
The plots in question are RS Plot Nos.
207,208,207/439,209 and 210 measuring about
0.036 acre, 0.09 acre,0.058 acre,0.02 acre and
0.02 acre respectively of Mouza Krishnagar, P.S
Ghatal appertaining to J.L no. 146 acquired
under the Defence of India Rules and later The
West Bengal Requisitioned Land (Continuation of
Powers) Act 1951.
3. Before considering the submissions made by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties, the facts of the case in a
nutshell are that the applicant moved a writ
petition bearing WP No. 19603(W) of 2015, which
was disposed of by the Learned Single Judge
vide order dated December 13, 2017 with the
following instruction: -
"... the writ petition stands disposed of with
direction upon the Land Acquisition Collector,
Paschim Medinipur to assess the compensation in
respect of those three plots, if the same was not
done before and to dispose of the proceeding of
the award upon hearing the Writ petitioner and
other interested parties, if any, preferably within
a period of six months and not exceeding nine
months from the date of communication of this
order."
4. In pursuance to the order dated December 13,
2017, a hearing was given to the applicant in a
proceeding drawn up by the alleged contemnor
on 05.02.2019 regarding compensation amount
for plot nos. 207,208 and 207/439 of Mouza
Krishnagar, P.S Ghatal appertaining to J.L no.
146, assessed in her favour in L.A Case No. 5 of
2011-2012 under The Land Acquisition Act,
1894. Instead of agreeing to receive
compensation, the applicant filed an application
for purchase of the aforesaid land by the
Government in terms of Government memo
No.756-LP/1A-03/14 (Pt-II).
5. The order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the
alleged contemnor entailed that :-
"...Assessment of compensation in respect of plot
of land in question involved in respective L.A
cases has already been made as per relevant
provisions of the respective act being in force at
that time and hence the undersigned being the
Land Acquisition Collector do not find any reason
for further assessment of compensation. However,
the assessed amount in L.A case No.5/11-12 (Act-
1 of 1894) which has been pending and has not
been received by the writ petitioner in spite of
repeated notices upon her is to be delivered
immediately."
6. Subsequently, the contempt application being
CPAN No. 1044 of 2018 was filed alleging
intentional and wilful violation of the said order
dated 13.12.2017 as compensation was awarded
measuring 0.020-acre, 0.035 acre and 0.022
acre respectively vide order dated 25.01.2019
passed by the alleged contemnor.
7. The Learned Counsel for the applicant submits
that the contemnor acted in wilful, deliberate
and contumacious violation of the order dated
13.12.2017 by not taking appropriate steps to
assess the compensation in respect of Plot Nos.
207, 208 and 207/439. The applicant
categorically mentioned the deed numbers by
which purchase of the plots were made and the
examination of the deeds at her request was
refused by the contemnor.
8. The Learned Counsel for the alleged contemnor
at the outset ,submits that highest reverence
and obedience is maintained towards the Hon'ble
Court and contends that the applicant entitled to
and 209 measuring 0.020 acre, 0.035 acre and
0.022 acre respectively acquired vide L.A Case
No.05 of 2011-2012 was served with several
notices under Section 12(2) of The Land
Acquisition Act 1894 dated 25.07.2013,
26.09.2013 and 18.11.2013 to receive a
redressal amount of Rs 6,94,078.00. However,
the applicant failed to accept the notices and did
not receive the amount of compensation.
9. It is submitted that on careful perusal of records of
LA Case No. 06/ 78-79 whereby RS Plot No.
207,208 and 207/439 measuring area of 0.036
acre, 0.09 acre and 0.058 acre were acquired, the
erstwhile owner of the abovementioned plot
numbers had relinquished his right of
compensation through registered deeds to the
applicant. Further, at the time of preparation for
assessment of redressal amount under The West
Bengal Requisitioned Land (Continuation of Powers)
Act 1951, no right of ownership was voiced for
updating status by the applicant. Due to the non-
feature of name in the land schedule against the
plots of land, the applicant failed to produce
relevant deed in support of his claim to
compensation for LA Case No. 06/ 78-79.
10. Heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusal of the records this court is
of the view that there can be no quarrel with the
proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction, the
court will not travel beyond the original judgment
and direction, neither would it be permissible for
the court to issue any supplementary or incidental
directions which are not to be found in the
original judgment and order. In the instant case,
scrutinising the order dated 05.02.2019 reveals
that immediate delivery of rightfully assessed
compensation of Rs.6,94,078.00 in L.A Case No.
5/11-12 to the applicant was called for, thereby
complying with the directions of the Learned
Single Judge passed in order dated 13.12.2017.
11. It is well settled law, before a proceeding
for contempt can succeed, it is of paramount
importance to establish firstly, the service of the
order of the Court said to have been disobeyed
upon the person alleged to have committed
contempt thereof, secondly the precise act of
contempt, thirdly the precise responsibility of the
contemnor in the act of contempt, and fourthly
the date of the alleged contempt being
subsequent to the service of the order said
to have been disobeyed. These are the
four indispensable requisites and failure to
establish any one of them must mean
dismissal of the petition for contempt.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan
vs. Tarun Bajaj and others reported in 2014
AIR SCW 1218 opined that: -
" 9. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law
courts power to punish an offender for his wilful
disobedience/contumacious conduct or
obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason
that respect and authority commanded by the
courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an
ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected
and the entire democratic fabric of the society will
crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is
undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt
jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of
the courts of law but that by itself operates as a
string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would
neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to
exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The
proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature, and
therefore, standard of proof required in these
proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It
would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for
contempt on the authorities in exercise of
contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities."
13. In Jhareshwar Prasad Paul vs. Tarak Nath
Ganguli, reported in 2002 (5) SCC 352, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated this principle
as follows:
"11. .......The Court exercising contempt
jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions
which have not been dealt with and decided in the
judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by
the applicant. The Court has to consider the direction
issued in the judgment or order and not to consider
the question as to what the judgment or order should
have contained. ......If the judgment or order does not
contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if
there is any ambiguity in the directions issued
therein then it will be better to direct the parties to
approach the court which disposed of the matter for
clarification of the order instead of the court
exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the
power to decide the original proceeding in a manner
not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or
order."
In the present case, the applicant is not aggrieved
by the direction issued in the judgment or order but
instead is aggrieved by a separate cause of action
which arose subsequently. The claim of the
applicant that an area of land in question has not
been considered and the amount of compensation
has not been properly calculated in order dated
05.02.2019 constitutes to be a separate legal claim.
14. In such view, the contempt application being
CPAN No.1044 of 2018 would not be maintainable
as no case of contempt has been made out. Hence,
the contempt application lacks merit and the same
is dismissed accordingly.
15. There will be no order as to costs.
16. Urgent certified copies, if applied for, be
issued by the department on compliance of all
requisite formalities.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)
