ER. K. ARUMUGAM versus V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 06-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
ER. K. ARUMUGAM
v.
V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 1510 of 2019
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Contempt of Court:
Writ petition in respect of compensation amount for the land
acquired by Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD
Board) – High Court directed the Board to submit report to the District
Collector to ensure fair and reasonable compensation to the writ
petitioner – In compliance of order of High Court, District Collector
passed order fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 200/– per sq. ft.
as on 1.4.2012 – When the compensation amount was paid to the
claimant, he received the same under protest – The claimant filed
contempt petition against the appellant alleging disobedience of
order of High Court – High Court issued some oral instructions,
whereupon, District Collector enhanced the value of the land @
Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. – High Court thereafter fixed the vaue of the
land @ Rs. 600/- per sq. ft. – Contempt appeal dismissed by Division
Bench of High Court – On appeal, held: A party can be proceeded
for disobedience of court order only when there is wilful
disobedience and non-compliance of Court order – In the present
case, there was no disobedience or non-compliance of the Court
order to entertain contempt petition – High Court fell in error in
entertaining the contempt petition and also in issuing positive
direction to the authorities to pay further compensation which is
arbitrary and unsustainable – The enhancement of land value @
Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. by District Collector, since passed under fear of
contempt, the same is liable to be quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A party can be proceeded for disobedience of
the order of the court only when there is willful disobedience and
non-compliance of the order passed by the court.  On perusal of
the order passed in Writ Petition it is seen that in the said order,
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 802
802
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
803
court has only directed the authorities to ensure that fair and
reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first respondent
and is paid at the earliest.  The officers quickly acted in order to
comply with the direction of the High Court.  When the direction
was only to consider the case of the first respondent for ensuring
fair and reasonable compensation and having regard to the swift
action taken by the appellant and other officials, there was no
disobedience of the order of the court, much less wilful
disobedience to invoke contempt jurisdiction. In the contempt
jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of
the order alleged to have been disobeyed. [Paras 12 and 17]
[808-F-G; 810-H]
2.  In compliance of the order of the High Court, the District
Collector passed the order fixing the land value at the rate of
Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 (though the land came to be
in occupation of the Board way back in 1991). The first respondent
has not challenged the said compensation fixed at the rate of
Rs.200/- sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 in the manner known to law.  In
compliance of the order of the High Court, when the amount has
been paid to the first respondent, there was no disobedience or
non-compliance of the order of the court to entertain the contempt
petition. [Para 13][809-B-C]
3. Without appreciating that the order of the High Court
has been duly complied with, the Single Judge erred in
entertaining the contempt petition.  Apart from entertaining the
contempt petition, the Single Judge further fell in error in issuing
positive direction to the authorities to pay further compensation
at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which is arbitrary and
unsustainable.   It is public money and having implications on the
public exchequer, the public money cannot be allowed to be taken
away by an individual by filing contempt petition thereby arm-
twisting the authorities.  The order passed by the Single Judge
affirmed by the Division Bench is ex-facie erroneous and liable
to be set aside. [Paras 14 and 17][809-F-G; 812-B]
4. The  proceeding of the District Collector dated
30.11.2016 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft.
as on 30.11.2016 was passed under the fear of contempt of court,
which is liable to be quashed.  In any event, when the entry into
ER. K. ARUMUGAM v. V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
804                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.