LexBIHAR FINANCE SERVICE H.C. COOP. SOCIETY LTD. versus GAUTAM GOSWAMI & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1137 " BIHAR FINANCE SERVICE H.C. COOP. SOCIETY LTD. A ~- II. GAUTAM GOSWAMI & ORS. (Contempt Petition (C) No.44 of 2005 in Civil Appeal No. 1357 of 2003) MARCH 5, 2008 B ;,. (S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) ~ Contempt of Courts Act, 1971/Constitution of India, 1950; Article 129: c Acquisition of land for construction of houses by a Society for its members - Initiation of land acquisition proceedings - Award - Challenge to - Allowed by High Court quashing Notification for acquisition - Supreme Court remitted the matter " . to High Court with a direction to dispose it of by following the D principles of fndividualized justice - High Court releasing certain lands in favour of Society- On appeal, Supreme Court further released certain land in favour of Society - Not complied with by the authorities - Contempt Petition - Held: Parameters of Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under 1970 Act E are well settled - While considering contempt application, the Court is primarily concerned with the question as to whether the order passed by the Court attained finality - And if so, -4 whether it was complied with or not - Supreme Court could neither extend the jurisdiction to reopen the issues nor shall it F embark upon other questions which could be raised in original proceedings - When claim of parties adjudicated upon and attained finality, it is not open for any party to go beyond the orders and seek to take away/truncate the effect thereof - In · view of undertaking given by the authorities for compliance of .G the orders, the petitioner had to wait for a long time to get the possession of the land so acquired in terms of order of the ,) High Court as modified by the Supreme Court - However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Municipal 1137 H 1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R. A Corporation is directed to take appropriate action with regard to sanction of construction plans of buildings on the land in question - Directions issued - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 4, 5A, 6 and 40. Petitioner, a Co-operative Society, made a requisition 8 to the State authorities for acquisition of land for construction of houses for its members. The authorities initiated the land acquisition proceedings and a declaration under s.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued followed by an award in respect of about 59.94 C acres of land, so acquired. Aggrieved by acquisition, the land owners filed writ petitions, which were allowed by the High Court remitting the case to the State for further proceedings in the matter of inquiry uls. 40 of the Act. On appeal preferred thereagainst, this Court while clarifying D the law operating in the field directed that the High Court should not have upset the Notification under s.6 of the Act as a whole and should have individualized justice vis- a-vis each writ petitioner before it. The matter was remitted to High Court for consideration in terms of the directions. E The High Court pursuant to the said direction had passed an order directing release of about 12.9603 acres of land. Claims in respect of the rest of the land were rejected and the authority was directed to identify the land and deliver possession thereof to the petitioner, if necessary, after F demolition of the constructions made thereon. In the meantime, several illegal constructions came up in some portions of the land so acquired. Against such illegal constructions, an appeal was preferred. This Court further released about 17.68 acres of land in favour of various G contenders. Allegedly, the said order was not complied with. Hence, the present Contempt Petition. A notice was issued by this Court for compliance of the order. In return, an affidavit was filed by the authority affirming therein that the action has already been initiated by them in pursuance of order of this Court. An affidavit was also filed by PROA H .. BIHAR FINANCE SERVICE H.C. COOP. SOCIETY LTD. 1139 ' v. GAUTAM GOSWAMI & ORS. assuring that it would carry out each and every direction A t- of this Court. It is further stated by the authorities that on 2/3.02.2007, possession of an area of 5.91775 acres of land was handed over to the petitioner. A controversy, however, was raised that the petitioner was only entitled to 18.8124 acres of land. This Court directed the authorities to s conduct a survey. The survey report revealed that 25.4871 acres
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.