Pal Singh (Dead) By L.Rs Vs. State of U. P. & Ors  Insc 328 (26 March 2007)
C. K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6100 OF 2001 Somendra Singh & Anr. .....
Appellants Versus State of U. P. & Ors. ..... Respondents W I T H CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 6101 OF 2001 Jagdish Pal Singh ..... Appellant Versus State of U. P.
& Ors. ..... Respondents WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 480 of 2004 IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 6099 of 2001
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
These appeals (being Civil Appeal Nos. 6099, 6100 and 6101 of 2001) are
directed against a common judgment and order dated 28th February, 2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the
impugned order, the High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.
31681/1998, 32856/1998 and 32857/1998 filed by the petitioners-appellants
herein challenging the correctness and validity of the Award passed by the
Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the Act"].
These appeals are taken up and heard together and are decided by this common
Facts necessary to understand and comprehend the controversy involved in
these cases are briefly stated as under:- The appellants are the
owners/bhoomidars of different parcels of lands in village Dantal, District
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh [for short "U.P."]. As per the Zonal
Development Plan, the lands of the appellants fall under Zone-IV. On
11.06.1985, the State of U.P. issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act
proposing to acquire 168 bighas of land including the land of the appellants
for construction of residential/commercial buildings by the Meerut Development
Authority (MDA) respondent No.3 herein under a Planned Development Scheme.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on
13.6.1985. On 19.7.1985, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published
in the local newspapers and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
published in the newspapers on 25.07.1985. The substance of both the
Notifications was published in the local newspapers on 25.07.1985. The
provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were also invoked and enquiry under
Section 5-A has been dispensed with.
The appellants and some more owners of the lands filed separate writ
petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1985
challenging the validity of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act
inter alia on the grounds that the lands of the owners had not been acquired
for public purpose and that the action of the State Government in taking
recourse to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act was arbitrary and
discriminatory. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions in part vide
order dated 14.01.1988 by holding that the substance of the two Notifications contemplated
by Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act was given on the same day, i.e. on
25.07.1985 in the locality, therefore, the Notification under Section 6 of the
Act would be invalid in terms of the amended provisions of Section 17(4) of the
Act. Consequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was quashed.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants and the MDA both had challenged the order
of the High Court by special leave petitions in this Court in the year 1988.
This Court granted leave in all the special leave petitions.
Civil Appeal No. 1828 of 1988 filed by the MDA was allowed by the Court vide
judgment dated 19.09.1996. The appeals of the claimants including the
appellants were dismissed. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pass
the Awards within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order
of this Court [see Meerut Development Authority v. Satbir Singh &
Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 462].
It appears from the record that thereafter the respondents herein had
conducted a fresh survey of the lands and prepared a site plan marking the
lands in different colours as per the nature and extent of the areas. On
20.10.1997, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in respect of 22
bighas 16 biswas and 12 biswansi of land and an area of 54 bighas 11 biswas and
16 biswansi was excluded from the acquisition including some portions of the
lands of the appellants because some constructions were found having been
raised over that extent of land by the people residing near and around the area
and the MDA had declined to take possession of the constructed area. It is the
case of the appellants that the Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on
18.09.1998 in respect of their acquired land without giving any notice or
hearing to the appellants and also beyond the period of two years. The
respondents notified the making of the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer in
(a Hindi daily newspaper).
The appellants filed Civil Writ Petitions in the year 1998 in the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the Award inter alia on the grounds that
the Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer after the statutory period
as contemplated under Section 11A of the Act. The High Court granted stay of
the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
Finally, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions by holding that the
Award marked as Annexure-4, specifically referred to 13.08.1985, the date of
publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and accepting the said
date as the last date of publication and the fact that stay was operating since
02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996, the Award dated 18.09.1998 was held having been
made within the period of limitation as envisaged by Section 11A of the Act and
as such the proceedings initiated for acquisition would not lapse. The
appellants were directed to handover the possession of the acquired land within
three months from the date of the order.
The order of the High Court would reveal that subsequently at the request of
the counsel, six months' time was granted to the appellants and other persons
who were parties before the High Court for handing over the possession of the
lands to the respondents. Now, the appellants are before this Court in these
Shri Anil Raj Kumar, Officer on Special Duty, MDA, respondent No.4 herein,
in his counter affidavit states that the High Court has taken into
consideration the Award passed by the Collector specifically referring to
13.08.1985, the date of publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act and
the fact that the stay order was in operation w.e.f. 02.08.1985 till
19.09.1996. It is also stated that the High Court has upheld the Award having
been passed on 18.09.1998 within the period of limitation as prescribed by
Section 11A of the Act and as such the land acquisition proceedings would not
lapse as contended by the appellants. He reasserted that declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.08.1985 and not on 25.07.1985 as alleged
by the appellants.
Smt. Nisha Goel, Additional District Magistrate (Joint Organisation), Meerut,
in joint counter affidavit, filed on behalf of State of U.P.-respondent No.1,
District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut respondent no.2 and Additional District
Magistrate (Joint Organisation), Meerut - respondent no. 3 in paragraph 4(d)
has stated the details of the dates on which the respective publications came
to be made. She has specifically stated that the gist of the Notification under
Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(2) was made in the locality on
13.08.1985 by beat of drums. She stated that out of the total area of 168
bighas 7 biswas and 4.15 biswansi notified for acquisition, possession to the
extent of 85 bighas 12 biswas and 12 biswansi was taken over on 16.08.1985 and
an Award with respect to the said land was also given on 24.07.1987. Out of the
remaining land measuring 77 bighas 8 biswas and 8.15 biswansi, an area of 46
bighas 12 biswas and 17.5 biswansi is covered by unauthorised construction,
therefore, it was left out of acquisition. She stated that the Award dated
18.09.1998 made by the Land Acquisition Collector pertains only to land
admeasuring 7 bighas 19 biswas and 9 biswansi.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance
perused the entire material on record.
The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that in terms of
Section 11A of the Act, it is mandatory to make an Award within two years from
25.07.1985, the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of
the Act. Admittedly, the Award was made on 18.09.1998 and as such, according to
the learned counsel, the acquisition proceedings have become null and void. He
urged that the High Court has failed to appreciate the import of the mandatory
provisions of Section 6 of the Act in proper perspective and therefore, the
order impugned in these appeals deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of U. P.
and MDA contended that the High Court was right in holding that the substance
of the declaration under Section 6(2) was published in the locality on
13.08.1985 and after excluding the period between 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996 in
terms of Explanation to Section 11A of the Act, when the land acquisition
proceedings remained pending in the High Court of Allahabad and later on till
Civil Appeal No.1828 of 1988 and connected matters came to be finally decided
by this Court on 19.09.1996.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, a few
provisions of the Act need to be noted. They are Section 6(1) and (2) and
Section 11A of the Act.
"Section 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. (1)
Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the Appropriate
Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under
section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public
purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the
signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised
to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time
in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification
under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or
different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5-A,
Provided further] [Explanation 1. ..
Explanation 2. .....] (2 ) Every declaration shall be published in the
Official Gazette, [and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in
which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional
language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such
declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of
the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being
hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration), and
such declaration shall state] the district or other territorial division in
which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate
area, and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such
plan may be inspected.
(3) Section 11A of the Act and Explanation thereto (omitting the proviso
which is not material in this case) are as under:
"11A. Period within which an award shall be made.(1) The Collector
shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date
of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that
period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Explanation.In computing the period of two years referred to in this section
the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of
the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
Section 6(2), on a plain reading, deals with the various modes of
publication and they are: (a) publication in the Official Gazette, (b)
publication in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the
land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language and (c)
causing public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at
convenient places in the said locality. There is no option left with anyone to
give up or waive any mode and all such modes have to be strictly resorted to.
The principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a
particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be
done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefor in the Act.
The provisions of Section 11A are intended to benefit the land owner and
ensure that the Award is made within a period of two years from the date of the
declaration under Section 6.
In ordinary course, therefore, when the Government fails to make an Award
within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not
vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings
are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11A, the
proceedings will elapse. The period of two years referred to in Section 11A
shall be computed by counting from the last of the publication dates, as per
the prescribed modes of publication.
In the present cases, as noted above, the appellants and other landholders
filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in the year 1985 whereby and whereunder they have challenged combined
Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act issued by the State Government.
The High Court vide order dated 14.01.1988 partly allowed the writ petitions.
It appears from the record that MDA and some claimants feeling aggrieved, filed
separate sets of appeals against the judgment dated 14.01.1988 in this Court.
This Court allowed Civil Appeal No.1828 of 1985 filed by MDA and dismissed the
appeals of the claimants. By judgment dated 19.09.1996, this Court set aside
the order of the High Court and directed the Collector to make Awards within a
period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.
Finally, the Collector made an Award on 18.09.1998 which came to be challenged
by the appellants before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad inter alia
on the ground that the Award was made beyond the period as envisaged under
Section 11A of the Act.
The High Court, as noted above, has held: "the Collector in the Award
(Annexure P-4) specifically refers 13.08.1985 as the date of publication of Notification
under Section 6. Accepting this as the last date of publication and the fact
that stay was operating since 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996, we hold the Award
passed on 18.09.1998 was within the limitation as envisaged by Section 11A of
the Act and as such the proceedings initiated for acquisition does not
In our view, the order of the High Court is not legal and justified. The
Division Bench seems to have committed a patent error, despite the decisions of
this Court in Eugenio Misquita & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors. [(1997) 8
SCC 47] (which does not appear to have been brought to its notice). While
applying the ratio in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Markant Singh [(1995) 2
SCC 497], this Court in Eugenio Misquita &
Ors. (supra), observed at SCC p. 52, Para 9 as under:
".The publication under Section 6 (2) of the Act is for a different
purpose, inter alia, for reckoning the limitation prescribed under Section 11A
of the Act.
This construction is supported by the language employed in Section 6(2) of
the Act. In particular, the word "hereinafter"
used in Section 6(2) will amply prove that the last of the series of the
publication referred to under Section 6(2) is relevant for the purposes coming
thereafter, namely, for making award under Section 11A. The language employed
in second proviso to Section 6(1) also supports this construction."
That apart, the words "the last of the dates of such publication and
the giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of
the publication of the declaration" leave no room for any assumptions to
the contrary. Thus, the view taken by the High Court in these cases not only
runs counter to the mandate of law enacted by Parliament, but is opposed to the
dicta of this Court.
We have gone through the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated
14.01.1988 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.10551 of 1985 and
other connected petitions earlier filed by the appellants and other owners of
the land. In those cases, the High Court has observed that joint Notification
under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the
State Government on 25.07.1985.
The MDA in paragraph 13 of the grounds of appeal being Civil Appeal No.1828
of 1988 on the record of this Court filed against the order of the High Court
dated 14.01.1998 has specifically stated that the substance of the two
notifications contemplated by the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act was
given on 25.07.1985 in the locality. Again, it was reasserted and stressed that
publication of substance in the locality on the same day, i.e. on 25.07.1985,
would not affect the appellants' rights adversely particularly when the
provisions of Section 5A, i.e. inviting objections against the acquisition of
the appellants' lands, have been dispensed with.
The MDA has admitted in its grounds of appeal that substance of last
publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was given in the
locality on 25.07.1985. Now, Shri Anil Raj Kumar, Officer on Special Duty of
MDA, in his counter affidavit filed before this Court in SLP (C) No.8331 of
2000 has taken inconsistent stand when he states in para 2(II) thus: 'the High
Court has taken into conspectus the Award marked as Annexure IV, specifically
refers 13.08.1985 as a date of publication of Notification under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, accepting this as a last date of publication and the
fact that stay order was in operation w.e.f. 2.8.1985 till 19.9.1996'.
The statement of Smt. Nisha Goel made in the counter affidavit filed by her
on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 that the declaration of public notice by
last mode under Section 6(2) of the Act by beat of drums in the locality on
13.08.1985 manifestly is wrong and on the face of it contrary to the contents
of the Notice (Annexure R-2) filed by her with the affidavit. This notice dated
13.08.1985 was issued by the Land Record Inspector, Block Rohta, Tehsil Meerut,
in response to the letter of MDA dated 09.08.1985 and that of the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Meerut, dated 01.08.1985.
The relevant substance of the notice reads as under:- "the land
described in the enclosed list situate in village Danta, Block Rohta, Tehsil
Meerut has been acquired by the Meerut Development Authority for its residential
scheme and letter for obtaining its possession has been received on 12.8.85 at
3 p.m. and intimation of which has been given today 13.8.85 in village Dantal
to all concerned farmer and residents of village by beat of drums and in loud
voice that notification had been published on 19.7.85, 25.7.1985 in daily
newspapers, "Meerut Samachar", Janta Express" and "Hamara
Yug" and Government Gazette. Since the land has been acquired for the
residential scheme of the Meerut Development Authority, no farmer should change
the nature of rights in the land and the possession of acquired land will be
taken on 16.3.85."
This notice appears to have been signed by marginal witnesses Har Pal Singh,
Sudhir Kumar and Yash Vir Singh and thumb mark by Chhote on 13.08.1985. The
language employed in this notice would not prove that it was the last mode of
publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act. In substance, this notice
appears to have been issued in purporting exercise of power under Section 9 of
the Act for taking possession of the acquired land on 16.08.1985. Thus, this
Notification, in no circumstances, would prove that it was the last mode of
publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act.
This Court in General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram
v. Jacob s/o Kochuvarkey Kalliath (dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(2003) 9 SCC 662]
has held that period of two years from the date of publication of the
declaration prescribed under Section 11A for passing the Award, must be
calculated from the last of the series of the publications referred to under
Section 6(2) of the Act.
Again, in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar &
Ors. [(2003) 10 SCC 1], this Court reiterating the proposition of law has
held that modes of publication of declaration prescribed under Section 6(2) are
conjoint and cumulative and all of them must be resorted to and completed.
Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act necessarily makes it abundantly clear
that the last of the dates of the publication and giving of such public notice
shall "hereinafter" be referred to as the date of publication of the
declaration and limitation period of two years for making Award under Section
11A has to be counted as the last of the dates out of the three modes of
publication specified in Section 6 of the Act.
It is not in dispute that the land acquisition proceedings remained stayed
vide order of the High Court of Allahabad in the earlier writ petitions filed
by the appellants as also during the pendency of the SLPs filed by the MDA and
the appellants and other persons against the order dated 14.01.1988 of the High
Court of Allahabad, which were decided on 19.09.1996.
The Land Acquisition Collector has even failed to make the Award within
stipulated period of six months as directed by this Court vide order dated
The ratio of the judgment in State of Haryana & Anr. v.
Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133], relied upon by the respondents, is of no
assistance or help to them. In that case, while dealing with the provisions of
Sections 4(1), 5A and 6(2) of the Act, this Court held: "since there is an
opportunity already given to the owner of the land or persons having interest
in the land to raise their objections during the inquiry under Section 5A, or
otherwise in case of dispensing with inquiry under Section 5A unless they show
any grave prejudice caused to them in non-publication of the substance of the
declaration under Section 6(1), the omission to publish the substance of the
declaration under Section 6(1) in the locality would not render the declaration
of Section 6 invalid.
However, this does not mean that the officers should not comply with the
requirement of law. It is their duty to do it."
In the light of the settled principles of law in Eugenio Misquita & Ors.
(supra), General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram
(supra) and Bihar State Housing Board (supra), the entire acquisition
proceedings for acquiring the land of the appellants culminating in the Award
made on 19.09.1998 after the period contemplated in Section 11A of the Act
shall elapse completely.
The High Court was not correct and justified in holding that the last date
of publication of the declaration under Section 6 was 13.8.1985 and not
25.07.1985. In the earlier civil writ petitions, the same High Court has
accepted 25.07.1985 as the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
No other point was urged by the parties.
For all the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad cannot be sustained. The
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 31681, 32856 and 32857 of 1998 filed by
the appellants before the High Court shall stand allowed. These appeals are
allowed with costs.
However, we make it clear that if the respondents are still interested to
acquire the land of the appellants, they are not precluded from initiating
fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 480 OF 2004 IN CIVIL APPEALNO. 6099 OF 2001 Kunwar
Pal Singh, the original petitioner, filed Special Leave Petition No. 8331 of
2000 in this Court against the final judgment and order dated 28.02.2000 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ
Petition No. 3168/1988. The said special leave petition came up for hearing on
10.07.2000 when this Court passed the following order:- "Issue notice.
Until further orders status quo as regards the possession so far as the
petitioner is concerned to be maintained."
The matter came up for hearing on 28.08.2001 when this Court granted special
leave to the petitioner and directed the interim order to continue in the
meantime. Kunwar Pal Singh died during the pendency of C.A. No. 6099 of 2001
and now his legal representatives are pursuing these proceedings.
The controversy in these proceedings pertains to the acquisition of the
lands of the appellants by the State Government for the benefit of Meerut
Development Authority [for short "the MDA"]. The State Government in
the year 1985 issued joint notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] proposing to
acquire 168 bighas of land including the land of the appellants. The Land
Acquisition Officer made an Award on 20.10.1997 in respect of 2 biswas of land
out of Plot No. 94.
An area of 3-16-5 bigha of land out of Plot No. 84 was left out from
acquisition. The appellants stated that later on, after a period of about 2
years without giving any notice to them, the Land Acquisition Officer made an
Award dated 18.09.1998 in respect of 12 biswas of land out of Plot No. 94 and
3-16-5 bigha land out of Plot No. 84. The Award of the Land Acquisition
Collector was challenged by the appellants and other land owners before the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad inter alia on the ground that the Award
came to be passed after the statutory period contemplated under Section 11A of
the Act. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The High
Court dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants and other claimants. The
appellants have filed special leave petitions in this Court against the
impugned common order of the High Court. In the special leave petition out of
which Civil Appeal No. 6099 of 2001 arises, the above- said interim order was
passed by this Court. The grievance of the appellants in this contempt petition
is that the MDA has encroached upon 10 biswas of land in Plot No. 84,
therefore, the original appellant submitted representation dated 05.11.2003
requesting the MDA to get Plot No. 84 demarcated on the spot. The lower staff
of MDA, for obvious reasons, wanted to encroach upon another Plot No. 94 owned
by the appellants. The appellants submitted that second representation was made
on 9.02.2004 to the Commissioner, MDA, requesting the MDA to remove its
encroachment on 10 biswas of land of Plot No. 84 and no further encroachment
should be made by the Authority on Plot No. 94. In response to the
representations of the appellants, Officer on Special Duty, MDA, vide letter
dated 21.05.2004 informed the original appellant that because of the operation
of the status quo order passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 8331/2000, it
was not possible for the party to get the demarcation done on Plot No.
84 measuring 3-16-5 bighas. The appellants alleged that the District
Magistrate/Collector, Meerut respondent No. 2 and the Additional District
Magistrate (Joint Organisation), Meerut respondent No. 3 herein came to Plot
No. 94 accompanied by police force at about 18.45 hours with bull dozers. One
son of the original appellant went to the site and informed respondent Nos. 2
and 3 and the other police officials not to take law into their hands in
demolishing the boundary wall of their farm house, but despite the order of
status quo passed by this Court they had demolished the boundary wall and the
cattle sheds constructed by the original appellant in the middle of the plot.
The appellants further alleged that respondents - contemnor nos. 2 and 3
threatened to hand over the possession of Plot No. 94 to some other persons and
once the construction work would be completed on that plot, no Court would be
able to get the possession restored to the original appellant. On these
premises, the appellants have prayed to deal with the contemnors for wilful and
intentional violation of the order of this Court dated 28.08.2001 and punish
them in accordance with law.
Shri Shantanu Kumar Trivedi, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division,
(former Vice-Chairman), MDA, in his counter affidavit has stated that the lands
forming part of Khasra Nos.
84 and 94 (plots) were acquired for and on behalf of MDA for construction of
residential houses. The Land Acquisition Collector made an Award 18.09.1998 in
respect of 12 biswas land forming part of Plot No. 94 and 3 bighas 16 biswas
and 5 biswani land out of Khasra No. 84. He stated that MDA has full respect to
the orders of the Courts and the status quo order passed by the Court was never
disturbed by the MDA on the spot. It is his plea that after receiving the
Report of Tehsil Lekpal as well as of the Engineer, the MDA demolished the
existing unauthorized construction on Plot No. 88. The construction on Plot No.
94 after receipt of the Survey Report was left undisturbed. The deponent denied
allegations of the appellants regarding encroachment by the MDA over Khasra
No./Plot No.84. He stated that because of the operation of the status quo
orders of this Court, the MDA could not oblige the original appellant to get
the area demarcated. It is contended by the deponent that the allegations made
in the contempt application by the appellants against the respondents are
wholly false and baseless. However, the deponent submitted that he has not
committed any contempt of the orders of this Court, still he has tendered
unqualified apology for any inconvenience caused to this Court.
Shri Anoop Sharma, Assistant Engineer and Shri Girija Shankar Mall, Junior
Engineer of MDA, have filed their separate counter affidavits. They have stated
that the MDA has not at all disturbed the status quo order passed by this Court
in regard to the Plot Nos./Khasra Nos. 84 and 94 as alleged by the appellants.
Their stand is that it was only in respect of Plot No. 88 where development
works were carried on as the said area was out of the purview of the orders of
any court. The allegations of wilful disobedience of the status quo order
passed by this Court are categorically denied by them.
However, both the officials have tendered an unconditional apology.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having scrutinized in
detail the counter affidavits of the respondents, we are of the view that there
is nothing before us to show that the respondents have wilfully flouted or
intentionally violated the status quo order dated 10.07.2000 and 28.08.2001
passed by this Court. Therefore, it is not a fit case for initiating any
proceedings for contempt against the respondents.
Consequently, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.