Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) v. N. Vasudevarao

__( I_ A SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) _v._ N. V ASUDEV A RAO AND ORS. NOVEMBER 28, 2007 B [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] _Land Acquisition:_ c _Acquisition/Resumption of land by Government without payment of ex-gratia-Challenged by assignee/owner-Single judge of High Court directing authorities to consider representation of petitioners for payment of_ ex-gratia-Not _complied with by authoritiesContempt petition-Single Judge directed payment of ex-gratia for_ D _entire extent of the land-LP A dismissed by High Court-On appeal Held: LPA maintainable-Neither Single Judge nor Division Bench of the High Court addressed the basic issue and came to an abrupt conclusion-Hence, the order passed by the High Court set asideThe authorities directed to consider the matter afresh-Directions issued_ E _Judicial restraint-High Court distinguished the judgment delivered by Supreme Court on the ground that no elaborate discussion in the judgment-Such an observation by the High Court violative of judicial discipline._ F The land in question, the Government land, was allegedly assigned to the respondents on the basis ofpattas. Later, the land was acquisitioned by the authorities without payment of ex-gratia. Respondents filed writ petitions contending that the authorities have resumed their land without payment of ex-gratia. Single Judge of G the High Court disposed of the writ petitions directing respondents to make a detailed representation to the authorities and the authorities were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate 625 H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A order. The authorities did not make ex-gratia payments to respondents. Aggrieved respondents filed Contempt petitions before the High Court. The Single judge of the High Court directed payment of ex-gratia payment for the entire extent of the land. Appellant authorities and others filed LP As before the High Court against the B order passed by the Single Judge which were dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. Appellant-authority contented that the Single Judge of the High Court has no jurisdiction to give any direction in the manner done while dealing with the contempt petitions and that the LP A was not C maintainable. Respondents-assignee ofland submitted that there was clear violation of the order passed by the High Court in the writ petitions and there was blatant attempt by the authorities to deny their D legitimate claim; and that the land was resumed on and nothing has been paid to them as compensation. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It appears that there is also dispute about the area, E so in the contempt petition no direction could have been given in the manner done. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that the LPA is not maintainable. In view of what has been stated in _Midnapore Peoples 'Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors._ v. _Chunilal Nanda and Ors.,_ the LPA was clearly maintainable. (630-F] F _Union of India & Ors._ v. _Subedar Devassy PV,_ (2006) 1SCC613; _Prithawi Nath Ram_ v. _State of Jharkhand,_ (2004) 7 SCC 261 and _Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors._ v. _Chunilal Nanda and Ors.,_ (2006) 5 SCC 399, relied on. G 1.2. The High Court distinguished the judgment delivered in _Lalith Mathur 's_ case on the ground that there was no elaborate discussion in the judgment and therefore no reason is discernible. To say the least, the alleged distinguishing feature as pointed out by the High Court not to follow the judgment cannot be said to be graceful. It is clearly violative of the judicial discipline. It has been H _-{ I_ 627 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) v. ## N. VASUDEVARAO [PASA YAT,J.] stated that payments have been made to some persons and no A departure could be made in the present case. Actually there is no definite material as to whether the land was resumed or it was an excavated land. (631-B, CJ _Lalith Mathur_ v. _L. Maheswara Rao,_ (2000] 10 SCC 285, B referred to. 1.3. It appears from record that three counter affidavits have been filed and one of the basic issues was whether the land was resumed or excavated land. There is no definite material in this regard brought by the respondents on record. Three counter C affidavits filed by the respondents clearly indicate their definite stand. Neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court addressed the basic issues and on the other hand came to abrupt conclusions. Therefore, the orders passed by the Single Judge _ and the Division Bench of the High Court deserve to be set aside. D The authorities shall however consider the matter in detail and record the findings. (631-D, E, F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 46494650 of 2004. E From the final Common Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2003 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in L.P.A. Nos. 184 and 185/2002. R. Sundervardhan, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla and T.V. George for the Appellant. F A. Subba Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the G order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of four Letters Patent Appeals i.e. LP A Nos. 184 and 185 of 2002 and 33 and 34 of2003, filed by the appellants. 2. Background facts need to be noted in brief before dealing with H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. ## A the rival contentions. 3. The land in question to an extent of 24 acres 82 cents is Government land which was said to have been assigned to the respondents herein on the basis ofD Fonn pattas. As per the tenns and conditions of B the pattas, whenever the land is required for any public purpose, the same can be resumed by the Government on payment of certain ex-gratia amount. 4. The concerned Executive Engineer SRBC Division, Koilakuntla is said to have sent proposals for acquiring about 24 acres 82 cents that C is the land in question situated in Cherlopalli village of Owk Manda!. Accordingly, the Revenue authorities surveyed the land and arrived at the actual extent ofland involved to be only 20 Acres 75 cents and the said land is Government land and therefore proposal for resumption of the land was said to have been initiated. ## D 5. Respondents herein filed W.P. Nos. 6511of1999 and W.P. No. 6513 of 1999, _inter alia,_ contending that the appellants have resumed their land without paying ex gratia amounts in tenns ofGOMs. No. 1307 dated 23.12.1993. E 6. Learned Single Judge by common judgment and order dated 11.8.1999 in Writ Petition Nos. 6511 & 6513 of 1999 disposed of the writ petitions directing the respondents herein to make a detailed representation to the authorities within four weeks and the authorities were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order within a period F of six weeks. Subsequently, respondents herein filed Contempt Case No. 493 of 2001 and Contempt Case No. 1211 of 2001 before the High Court _inter alia_ alleging that despite court's order the ex-gratia payment was not made. The appellants filed detailed counter affidavits in the said contempt petitions _inter alia_ indicating that the land in question was not G resumed and out of the alleged land in question i.e. out of Acre 24.82 cents, soil was stated to have been excavated only in Acre 2.40 cents and as such they are not entitled to any _ex-gratia_ payment in respect of the entire extent. 7. A learned Single judge of the High Court on consideration of the H matter by a common order dated 11.9.2002 in the two contempt cases / _.-{ I_ 629 ## SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(L.A.) _v._ ## N. VASUDEVARAO [PASAYAT,J.] held that the department has resumed the land in question, exonerated the concerned officer and directed payment of ex-gratia payment in terms of GO Ms. No. 1307 dated 23 .12.1993 for the entire extent of the land. Appellant filed LPA Nos. 184 and 185 of 2002 before the High Court against the order passed by learned Single Judge. The other LPA No. 33 of2003 was filed by the Commissioner of Municipality, Tuni. The third parties filed LPA No. 34 of2003 along with a Misc. Petition seeking permission of the Court to condone delay in filing of the LPA against the order. They also filed another Misc. petition to direct the Municipality to deliver possession of the shops as per the terms and conditions of the auction. These two appeals have been filed by the functionaries of the State Government against the combined order of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal. 8. Stand of the appellant in these appeals is as follows: Primarily, it is contented that the learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to give any direction in the manner done while dealing with the contempt petition. In any event, a learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction as his order merging to the order of Division Bench. Finally it is submitted that the LP A was not maintainable. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted E that there was clear violation of the order passed in the writ petitions and there was blatant attempt to deny the legitimate claim of the respondents herein. The land was resumed on 18 .11.1998 and till now nothing has been paid to the respondent as compensation. Reference has been made to several correspondences between Municipal Revenue Officer Owk F Mandalam and the Special Deputy Collector, Nandyal to show that the lands of the respondents were resumed. ., 10. The law as to nature of order that can be passed in contempt proceedings had been elaborately dealt with by this Court in several cases. G In _Union of India & Ors._ v. _Subedar Devassy PV,_ [2006] 1 SCC 613 it was held as follows: "2. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision H 630 [2007] 12 S.C.R. B c D E ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS A which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be pennissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different from what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in _K.G. Derasari_ v. _Union of India,_ [2001] 10 sec 496. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher court. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself the power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellants on a three-Judge Bench decision in _Niaz Mohd._ v. _State of Haryana,_ [1994] 6 SCC 332, we find that the same has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the question arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand of the appellants, the least it could have done was to assail correctness of the judgment before the higher court." 11. The above position was earlier highlighted in _Prithawi Nath Ram_ v. _State of Jharkhand,_ [2004] 7 SCC 261. F 12. It appears that there is also dispute about the area, so in the contempt petition no direction could have been given in the manner done. The Division Bench has held that the LP A is not maintainable. In view of what has been stated in _Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors._ v. _Chunilal Nanda and Ors.,_ [2006] 5 SCC 399, the LPA was clearly G maintainable. 13. In _Lalith Mathur_ v. _L. Maheswara Rao,_ [2000] 10 SCC 285 it was _inter alia_ held as follows. "3. The above will show that the High Court has directed the State Government to absorb the respondent against a suitable post either H # SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) _v._ 631 N. VASUDEVARAO[PASAYAT,J.] in a government department or in any public sector undertaking. A This order, in our opinion, is wholly without jtirisdiction and could not have been made in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution." 14. Reliance was placed on two Division Bench Judgments holding B that contempt petition was not maintainable before Learned Single Judge as his order had merged with the Division Bench order. As regards _Lalith Mathur_ 's case (supra), the High Court distinguished the judgment on the ground that there was no elaborate discussion in the judgment and therefore no reason is discernible. To say the least, the alleged C distinguishing feature as pointed out by the High Court not to follow the judgment cannot be said to be graceful. It is clearly violative of the judicial discipline. It has been stated that payments have been made to some persons and no departure could be made in the present case. Actually there is no definite material as to whether the land was resumed or it was an excavated land. D 15. It appears from record that three counter affidavits have been filed and one of the basic issues was whether the land was resumed or excavated land. There is no definite material in this regard brought by the respondents on record. Three counter affidavits filed by the respondents clearly indicate their definite stand. Neither learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench addressed the basic issues and on the other hand came to abrupt conclusions. Therefore, the orders passed by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench deserve to be set aside, which we direct. The authorities shall however consider the matter in detail and record findings keeping in view the GO, the factual position and evidence led before it. The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.