Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Vijay Laxmi Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCC No. 338 of 2021
Smt. Vijay Laxmi Sharma W/o Late Govind Prasad Sharma
Aged About 89 Years R/o Deepak House, Jalgrih Marg,
Tikrapara, Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of
Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan,
Thana Naya Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector through the Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Disaster Management Collectorte District of Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Tehsildar Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. The Chairman Raipur Development Authority, Chhattisgarh
Raipur. --- Respondents
CONT No. 503 of 2021
Smt. Vijay Laxmi Sharma W/o Late G.P. Sharma Aged About
85 Years Resident of Dipak House, Jal Grih Marg, Tikrapara
Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari Registrar General High Court of
General High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Shri Yoghesh Parik Registrar (Judicial) , High Court of
Chhattisgarh, Bodri Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Raipur Development Authority through C.E.O. Raipur,
Development Authority Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. B. P. Sharma with M.L. Sakat,
Advocates.
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Prafull Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
For respondent no.3 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Asmita Singhai, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order on Board
02 .08.2021
1. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner Vijay Lakshmi
Sharma and the MCC PUD which emanates from the notice
issued to the Registrar by the counsel for petitioner come for
consideration. The primary crux of the matter is that after a
long drawn litigation with respect to payment of
compensation, Special Leave Petition No. 8422/2020 filed by
RDA, Raipur and SLP No.9912/2020 & 9913/2020 filed by
Vijay Laxmi Sharma were eventually decided together by
order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 3rd March of
2021 wherein certain directions were given at para 23 which
is reproduced here-in-below:
"23. In the end we direct as under :
a) The amounts deposited by the Authority in
the Registry of this Court, pursuant to the order
dated 24.09.2020 passed by this Court along with
interest accrued thereon, shall be made over to the
Registry of the High Court within two weeks from
today;
b) The writ petitioners shall be entitled to the
sums indicated against their names in the
compliance affidavit of the Authority along-with
interest accrued thereon, after the conveyance
deeds in respect of the parcels of land which were
held by the writ petitioners (the details of which are
given here-in-above) are executed in favour of the
Authority.
C) To facilitate the exercise as directed in
afore-sated directions:-
(i) within two weeks of the receipt of money in
terms of direction (a) by the Registry of the High
Court, the writ petitioners shall indicate a day for
execution of the conveyance deed with advance
intimation of at least three days.
(ii) the writ petitioners shall, on the date so
indicated, execute the Conveyance Deeds in favour
of the Authority, which shall be represented by a
competent official of the Authority, duly authorised
in that behalf.
(iii) All the charges in respect of the execution
of Conveyance including stamp duty, if any, shall be
borne by the Authority.
(iv) Upon furnishing of proof of such execution,
the Registry of the High Court shall disburse the
money allocable to each of the writ petitioners or to
their successors as the case may be, within a week".
2. Subsequent thereto, a writ petition was filed before this
Court bearing WPC No.2287/2021 wherein this Court on
15.06.2021 passed the following order:-
"Heard.
1. During the preliminary submission reference
is made to a letter dated 09.06.2021 issued by the
Raipur Development Authority whereby it is stated
that the amount of Rs.6,68,13,140/- which was
deposited in the Supreme Court has been
transferred to the High Court and is with the
Registry, same amount may be released in respect
of the respective petitioners who were before the
Supreme Court.
2. Shri B. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
on instruction would submit that no further
adjudication is required to be made as the name of
the RDA is already transferred in respect of the land
in question.
3. Considering the tenor of the letter dated
09.06.2021 which is addressed to the Registrar, High
Court, the Registry is directed to release the amount
of Rs.6,68,13,140/- in respect of the respective
petitioners subject to compliance by the order
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court within a week.
4. With such observation, the petition stands
disposed of".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in order
to execute a Conveyance Deed, necessarily the property
ought to have been in the name of petitioner whereas the
entire property which was subject of acquisition was already
recorded in the name of RDA, therefore, nothing remains to
be conveyed. He refers to the letter of the RDA filed in writ
petition and would submit that the RDA having no objection
to release the amount in favour of the petitioner has
deposited the amount of Rs.6,72,78,127/- whereas the
Registry of this Court has put an objection that unless and
until the compliance of the Supreme Court order is carried
out, the amount cannot be released. He would submit that
the Registry of this Court is compelling the petitioner to
make a false submission and commit illegal act inasmuch as
no land stands in the name of petitioner as on today and the
entire land has been transferred to RDA, Raipur. It is further
stated that in order to register a conveyance the necessary
revenue documents are required to be attached to show that
the property is in the name of vendor. It is also stated that
since in revenue records the property already stands
transferred in the name of RDA, the order of the Supreme
Court be interpreted in that line. It is stated that the
Registrars knowing the facts in its entirety are avoiding to
release the amount despite the fact that RDA has consented
to release the amount in favour of the petitioner. Therefore,
it is stated that when the RDA does not have any objection,
in such eventuality the amount deposited by the RDA should
have been paid to the petitioner and to avoid the same it
sounds in contempt.
4. Certain Instructions were directed to be obtained by the
Counsel from respondents 1 & 2. They have placed reliance
on a direction given by the Supreme Court.
5. While considering the issue, it would appear that this Court
by its order dated 15.06.2021 passed in WPC No.2287/2021
observed that the payment of Rs.6,68,13,140/- with interest
be made over to the petitioner subject to compliance of the
order passed by the Supreme Court within a week. It is,
therefore, the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court on which the
petitioner in sum and substance claims that there has been
non-compliance of the order. This Court has only reiterated
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court is denuded of its power to interpret the order to find
out whether any contempt is committed or not. Therefore,
as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vitusah
Oberoi and others Versus Court of its own motion
(2017) 2 SCC 314 , there is nothing in Contempt of Courts
Act 1971 or Article 215 of Constitution of India, which can be
said to empower the High Court to initiate the proceeding
suo motu or otherwise for the contempt of superior court like
Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court further held that the
power to punish for contempt vested in Court under Article
215 does not, however, extend to punishing for the contempt
of Superior Court. Therefore, if the petitioner is of the opinion
and sanguine of the fact that there has been contempt of the
order for not releasing the amount in her favour, this Court
cannot usurp the jurisdiction as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vitusah Oberoi Vs. Court of its
Own Motion (supra). In view of the above position of law, I
am not inclined to go into or investigate the fact as to non-
compliance of the order which is being being projected by
the petitioner whether the contempt is committed or not. It
further appears that the amount has already been deposited
by the Registry of this Court, therefore, till the amount is
released and paid to the petitioner, for short interval of 30
days the amount so deposited by the RDA shall be kept in
the fixed deposit so that it would not cause any loss of
interest to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the MCC and Contempt Petition stand disposed
of.
Sd/-
GOUTAM BHADURI
JUDGE
Rao
