LexM/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL versus SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 725 [2021] 9 S.C.R. 725 725 M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS. Contempt Petition(c) Nos.726 -728 of 2017 In (Civil Appeal Nos.10394-10396 of 2011) DECEMBER 14, 2021 [ R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt – When not – Land belonging to the petitioner acquired under 1894 Act – s.4 notification issued in 1981, possession taken – Land subsequently declared as protected forest – No award passed – Fresh/further notifications issued – Challenged by petitioner in writ petition, various other writ petitions pending – Award passed in 2006 purportedly pursuant to 1981 notification – High Court held that the possession and title of the land vested in the respondent-State – Petitioner’s appeals in Supreme Court allowed vide order dtd.17.08.15 holding that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed and the provisions of 2013 Act were to apply; State directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings – Contempt petitions filed alleging violation of aforesaid directions – Fresh notification u/s.11, 2013 Act issued during the pendency thereof – Contempt petitions disposed of vide order dtd.29.08.16 observing that as possession of the land in question was already taken, the petitioner shall be paid compensation as per s.40, 2013 Act – State sought correction of the aforesaid order – IAs dismissed vide order dtd. 05.01.17 – Violation of orders dtd.17.08.15, 29.08.16 and 05.01.17 alleged – Held: In view of order dtd. 10.02.20 passed by this Court; the fresh notification dtd. 14.02.20 and the award dtd. 12.11.20, it cannot be said that respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dtd. 17.08.15 – Thus, in view of the last notification issued u/s.11, 2013 Act on 14.02.20 and the award passed by the authorities, it cannot be said that respondents have deliberately violated any directions issued by this Court –Further, when the notification was issued u/s.11, 2013 Act, without invoking urgency A B C D E F G H 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. clause, the question of extending the benefits as per s.40, 2013 Act will not arise – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4, 6 – Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.11, 40, 64, 66, 74 – Indian Forest Act, 1927 – s.29. Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD : In the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10394-10396 of 2011, while quashing the acquisition proceedings on the ground that proceedings were lapsed, as the award was not passed within the prescribed period in the Act, respondent-State was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or to take any other action available under law. Consequent to abovesaid order dated 17.08.2015 respondents have issued fresh notification on 14.11.2015, thereafter in the order dated 10.02.2020, this Court has noted the submission of the State that even the said notification dated 14.11.2015 also lapsed as no award was passed, as such fresh notification was issued thereafter on 14.02.2020. Pursuant to notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on 14.02.2020, award inquiry was conducted. Petitioner has filed its claim petition in the award inquiry on 08.06.2020. In view of the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by this Court and the fresh notification dated 14.02.2020 and the award dated 12.11.2020, it cannot be said that respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 17.08.2015. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2015, when the review petition was dismissed, curative petition was filed and the same is pending. Further, when the notification was issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, without invoking urgency clause, the question of extending the benefits as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act will not arise. In view of the last notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on 14.02.2020 and the award passed by the respondent-authorities, it cannot be said that respondents have deliberately and intentionally violated any directions issued by this Court, attracting the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available in the Act for proper determination of compensation but at the same time it cannot be said that respondents have violated directions issued by this Court. Section A B C D E F G H 727 64 of the 2013 Act, makes it clear that any person interested,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.