Sh. S.L.Saini vs Sh. Gyanender Bharti & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6391 Del

*           HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      CONT.CAS(C) 623/2014

                                  Decided on : 2nd December, 2014

    SH. S.L.SAINI                                   ..... Petitioner

                       Through:      Mr.R.K.Saini, Adv.

                    Versus

    SH. GYANENDER BHARTI & ORS         ..... Respondent
                 Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Adv.for LAC.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

    V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner on account

of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order of the court dated

17.05.2012. Vide the said order, the DJB was directed to take

necessary steps to forward their request to Govt. of NCT of Delhi

for acquiring the subject parcel of land within a period of two

weeks from today whereafter the Govt. of NCT of Delhi shall

process the application received from the DJB in accordance with

law as expeditiously as possible.

2. The aforesaid directions of the court would show that the

DJB had to make a request for acquisition of land to the

Government of NCT of Delhi. The land of which acquisition was

requested was measuring 2 bighas 12 biswas and it was situated in

Khasra Nos.590/55/1 (2-8) and 592/55/2 (0-4) in Village Jasola.

The allegation of the petitioner is that is that the respondents have

not taken any action pursuant to the aforesaid direction for the

purpose of acquisition of land.

3. The R-3, Land Acquisition Collector (South-East), has filed

its reply. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out that the request of

the DJB for acquisition of the land in question was received on

16.05.2012 i.e. a day prior to the date of passing of the order dated

17.05.2012. The said request was processed and a decision was

taken to have the demarcation done in respect of the land in

question so that steps could be taken for the purpose of acquisition

of the land. A joint survey of the land under reference was fixed

on 27.08.2013, 20.09.2013, 09.10.2013, 27.12.2013 and

22.01.2014. However, the land could not be acquired as either the

petitioner or the officers of the respondents other than the Land Acquisition Collector were not present at the time of demarcation

and, therefore, the land could not be identified. The proceedings

had to be deferred for one reason or the other. In the meantime, it

is stated that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the

new Act' for short) came into operation on 01.01.2014 and the

Land Acquisition Collector did not receive the order conferring the

power to acquire the land in question under the new Act. The Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the old Act' for short) in the meantime got

lapsed and consequently the proceedings for acquisition of the land

in question could not be concluded.

4. These are the reasons given by respondent No.3 for the

purpose of not being able to acquire the land in question in terms

of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide order

dated 17.05.2012.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not right to contend

that the respondents are guilty of wilful disobedience of the order

of the court dated 17.05.2012. The disobedience of the order in the

instant case is on account of certain new developments which have been occasioned on account of promulgation of the new Act of

acquisition of land and on account of which the old Act ceased to

be in operation.

6. It is correct that in the order dated 25.09.2014 while issuing

notice to the respondents, this court had taken of the fact that since

the order passed on 17.05.2012 and till the new Act coming into

operation on 01.01.2014, more than one and half year had elapsed

and still the respondents, despite having sufficient time, slept over

the matter and failed to acquire the land. But before acquiring the

land, necessarily a joint survey/identification of the land had to be

carried out so that it could be found out as to whether the

acquisition of the land was useful for the purpose of setting up the

sewerage treatment plant. Unfortunately, the order of the court

could not be brought to its logical conclusion in view of the new

development which had taken place, therefore, though technically

one may say that there is disobedience of the order of the court

passed by the learned single Judge, but it cannot be said to be

wilful. The wilful disobedience is gross disobedience or

intentional disobedience by a party to lower the majesty of the court. In the instant case, it can by no stretch of imagination be

stated that the disobedience on the part of the respondents in not

concluding the land acquisition proceedings under the orders of the

court were not wilful or gross.

7. I, therefore, feel that the issuance of notice to the

respondents for initiating an action for contempt was

misconceived. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed

and the contempt notice is discharged.

V.K. SHALI, J.

DECEMBER 02, 2014 dm