LexPALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus SMT. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I _-):-- -- PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. & ANR. A v. SMT. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS. MARCH 20, 2007 B [K.G. BALA KRISHNAN, CJ. AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.] Contempt of Court-Non-compliance of Supreme Court order-Willful and deliberate act to subvert the order with malafide motive-By senior and C experienced officers of the State Government-Such conduct severely condemned-Duty of the Court. Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 142-Judgments of Supreme Court are binding on all authorities-It is not open to any authorities to ignore a binding judgment of Supreme Court on the found that full facts had not been placed before the Court. Contempt petition was folded before this Court alleging that the Respondent-State Government and its officers deliberately and willfully did D not comply with the specific directions contained in an earlier judgment of E this Court with regard to grant of permission for non agricultural use in respect of certain landed property. During pendency of the contempt proceedings, Respondent authorities gave permission for non-agricultural use, but for recreation purpose and not for residential purpose. Allowing the contempt petition and dismissing the connected IAs, the F Court HELD: 1. It is well settled that the judgments of this Court are binding on all the authorities under Article 142 of the Constitution and it is not open to any authority to ignore a binding judgments of this Court on the ground G that the full facts had not been placed before this Court and/or the judgment of this Court in the earlier proceedings had only collaterally or incidentally decided the issues raised in the show-cause notices. Such an attempt is to belittle the issues and the orders of this Court. A perusal of the 221 H 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 4 S.C.R. A correspondences would show that the respondents have expressly stated that the Government has decided not to accept the judgment of this Court insofar as the aforementioned lands are concerned. It is needless to emphasize that judgments of this Court are binding on all authorities and the government cannot arrogate to it powers to reject the judgment of this Court. As regards B the land admeasuring 80 acres in survey Nos. 471/2 and 50 acres survey No. 472 are concerned, the respondent-authorities are refusing to grant the c permission on the self same issues, namely, that the said land is a government land. The said issues have already been finally concluded in favour of the petitioners by the various judgments of this Court in the earlier litigations. (Paras 12 and 14] [228-B; 229-C-E] 2. The respondents have with impunity flouted the judgment dated 15.10.2004 passed by this Court During the pendency of the contempt petition and the IAs, a letter was written by the Revenue Department to the Collector, Bhavnagar to take steps as the government has taken a decision to accept the D judgment of this Court dated 15.10.2004 for the land admeasuring 17 acres 4 guntas and 0.32 guntas and 1 acres 14 guntas upon which sundervas bungalow is located. The Collector was directed to comply with the said direction, However, in order to nullify the aforesaid acceptance of the judgment in respect of the land mentioned above, permission for non-agricultural use has been given for the recreation use and not for the residential use thus E depriving the petitioner of the right to construct residential house. The action of the respondents and the Collector in issuing permission for non- agricultural use for the recreation use is with an oblique motive to deprive the petitioner or the right to construct residential houses as· already ordered in the judgment dated 15.10.2004. This Court therefore, directs the Revenue F Department and the Collector, Bhavnagar to forthwith issue permission to the petitioner for residential use with a right to construct residential houses for the above survey Nos. as mentioned in the letter dated 10.01.2007 of the Revenue Department to the Collector, Bhavnagar. In an answer to a query put by this Court to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether Survey No. 471/ 2 was a water body, he made a categorical statement that the said survey No. G 471/2 is not a water body. The statement made by the counsef is placed on record. If it is not a water body, there cannot be any impediment on the part of the respondents authorities in granting non~agricultural permission and other
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.