R.N. Dey & Ors Vs. Bhagyabati
Pramanik & Ors [2000] INSC 235 (19 April 2000)
M.B.Shah, K.T.Thomas
Shah, J.
Delay condoned. These appeals are filed
against the judgment and order dated 4th August, 1998 passed by the High Court
of Calcutta in C.R. No.1186 of 1993 and C.P.A. N. No.1822 of 1997 in F.A.
No.232 of 1983. By the impugned order, the Court accepted unqualified apology
tendered by the appellants in compliance with the orders of the Court for not
paying the balance award money due to the respondents. The Court further
directed the appellants to deposit with the Registrar (Appellate Side) the
compensation money determined in terms of order of the learned Land Acquisition
Judge in respect of the lands acquired by the State as mentioned in the order
and decree within two weeks from the date of the order without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties in such proceedings.
Further, the Court did not pass any order on
the application filed by the Collector for vacating the Rule issued in the contempt
proceeding holding that Collector cannot go behind the Award passed by him as
provided under the Land Acquisition Act.
It is the contention of the appellant that
the land in question has vested in the State Government under the Estates
Acquisition Act, 1953 and the intermediaries were paid the compensation under
the said enactment. It is also contended that respondents-claimants have
obtained a decree by fraud in their favour after the said Act, therefore, it is
nullity as the land vested in the State Government.
Further, by mistake, the Collector made an
order under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of 39.02 acres of land
@ Rs.27,126/- per acre. That compensation was enhanced to @ Rs.4,23,500/- per
acre. The State of West Bengal filed appeal (First Appeal No.232 of 1988)
against the said Judgment and Decree. In the said appeal, an application for
stay was also filed on which the High Court made an order directing that
payment @ Rs.600/- per cottah be made as an interim relief. The claimants filed
an application before the Appellate Court for a direction that compensation
amount be paid. However, the Appellate Court directed an ad hoc payment of
Rs.1,00,000/-. That amount was paid. Further, on 15th May 1992, the High Court
passed an interim order which reads as under:
Accordingly, the appellant should pay at this
stage to the respondent/claimant a sum equivalent to 3/4th of the rate admitted
by the appellant, i.e. 3/4th of Rs.800/- per cottah including the benefits
awarded by the learned L.A. Judge within two months from today.
Thereafter, it came to light that claimants
have no right, title or interest in the land and, therefore, no compensation
was payable to them. In these circumstances, the State of West Bengal moved an
application for vacation of the order for the payment. Thereafter, the
claimants filed an application stating that the officers of the State of West
Bengal were in contempt for not having complied with the order of the High
Court.
It is also pointed out that against the order
of the High Court directing that 2/3rd of the compensation be paid to the
claimants, the State approached this Court by filing a petition but the same
was withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court for suitable orders.
Subsequently, claimants filed an application before this Court seeking
clarification of order dated 09.9.1992. This Court vide order dated 23.8.1993
clarified its order by stating that order dated 09.9.1992 does not, in any way,
come in the way of claimants getting the admitted compensation. Subsequently,
the High Court passed an order that application for vacating interim order
would be heard on the date fixed for hearing of the contempt rule.
In the background of these facts, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that First Appeal No.232 of
1988 is pending before the Court and that there is no specific order staying
the judgment and award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge. Therefore, instead
of filing contempt application, the claimants could, at the most, have proceeded
with the execution of the decree or award. It is further submitted that in view
of the facts stated above contempt application was wholly untenable and the
issuance of Rule in said matter was unjustifiable. Hence, the High Court
committed grave error in proceeding on the basis that the officers of the State
Government are in contempt. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the various
orders, the State has paid in all appeals approximately Rs.50/- lacs even
though it is the contention of the State Government that nothing was payable to
the claimants as the land has vested in the State Government. As against this,
it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that after
tendering unqualified apology it was not open to the appellant to file these
appeals. At present, since the matter is kept pending before the High Court,
this Court should not interfere at this interlocutory stage.
We may reiterate that weapon of contempt is
not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for
execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative
remedy in law is provided for.
Discretion given to the Court is to be
exercised for maintenance of Courts dignity and majesty of law. Further, an
aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise such
jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and the Court. It is true that
in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending and has ordered
that it should be heard along with the First Appeal.
But, at the same time, it is to be noticed
that under the coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed
to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by asserting that
claimants were not the owners of the property in question and that decree was
obtained by suppressing the material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that
claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the
trial court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at the most they are
entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can
or may contend that the award is nullity. In such a situation, as there was no
willful or deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt
proceedings was wholly unjustified.
Further, the decree-holder, who does not take
steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law,
should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the court for
non-satisfaction of the money decree. In land acquisition cases when a decree
is passed the State is in the position of a judgment debtor and hence the court
should not normally lend help to a party who refuses to take legally provided
steps for executing the decree. At any rate, the court should be slow to haul
up officers of the Government for contempt for non-satisfaction of such money
decree.
The learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that after issuance of notice for contempt proceedings initiated by
the respondents, the Court has only issued Rule and the matter is not finally
decided, therefore, the appeal against such order is not maintainable. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that respondents want to
take undue advantage of pending contempt proceedings and coerce the officers of
the State in making payment on the basis of the award even though they are not
entitled to recover the same as the property had already vested in the State
and that the appellants were required to pay in all approximately Rs. 50 lakhs
to the claimants.
In our view the aforesaid contention of the
learned counsel for the respondents requires to be rejected on the ground that
after receipt of the notice, concerned officers tendered unconditional apology
and after accepting the same, the High Court rejected the prayer for discharge
of the Rule issued for contempt action. When the Court either suo moto or on a
motion or a reference, decides to take action and initiate proceedings for
contempt, it assumes jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The exercise of
jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with the initiation of a
proceeding for contempt and if the order is passed not discharging the Rule
issued in contempt proceedings, it would be an order or decision in exercise of
its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Against such order, appeal would be
maintainable. For the aforesaid purpose, reference can be made to the decision
in P.D. Goel v. B.S. Dhillon and Others [(1978) 2 SCC 370] wherein the Court
observed that: - If the alleged contemnor in response to the notice appears
before the High Court and asks it to drop the proceeding on the ground of its
being barred under Section 20 of the Act but the High Court holds that the
proceeding is not barred, it may well be that an appeal would lie to this Court
under Section 19 from such an order although the proceeding has remained
pending in the High Court.
The Court further observed that if the order
decides some disputes raised before the Court by the contemnor asking it to
drop the proceedings on one ground or the other, the appeal against the said
order is maintainable.
In the present proceedings the question
whether appeal under Section 19 is maintainable or not is not required to be
decided finally as, in our view, facts of this case are grossly inadequate and
the contempt proceedings were not required to be initiated at all. In any case,
the unconditional apology tendered could have been accepted and further
proceedings dropped and Rule ought to have been discharged.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the
impugned order passed by the High Court issuing Rule in contempt proceedings is
set aside. The First Appeal filed by the State is pending since 1988 and it has
been contended by the State that the property which was acquired had already vested
in the State Government, therefore, the High Court is requested to expedite the
hearing of the First Appeal and dispose it of as early as possible. The appeals
stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2