SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR versus SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 664 · Decided: 01-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 664 
A 
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR 
B 
c 
D 
v. 
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2733 of 2013 etc.) 
APRIL 1, 2013. 
[G.S. SINGHVI, H.L. GOKHALE AND RANJANA 
PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 
s. 127 rlw s. 126 - Land reserved not acquired/no steps 
commenced towards acquisition within six months of service 
of notice uls 127 - Held: The reservation shall be deemed to 
have lapsed and the land shall be deemed to have been 
released from such reservation so as to enable the owner to 
develop the same - Steps towards acquisition would really 
commence when State Government takes active steps for 
acquisition of particular piece of land which leads to 
publication of declaration uls 6 of 1894 Act - Expression "no 
steps as aforesaid" used in s. 127 of 1966 Act has to be read 
E in the context of provisions of 1894 Act and mere passing of 
a resolution by Planning Authority or sending of a letter to 
Collector or even to State Government cannot be treated as 
commencement of proceedings for acquisition of land under 
1966 Act or 1894 Act - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.6. 
F 
In the instant appeals filed by the Municipal Council, 
the question for consideration before the Court was: 
whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by the 
respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans 
G prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town 
Planning Act, 1966 would be deemed to have lapsed 
because the same were not acquired or no steps were 
commenced in that respect within six months of the 
service of notice u/s 127 of that Act. 
H 
664 
STATE OF J & KAND ORS. v. SAT PAL 
661 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
persons who have been appointed on merit against the 
A 
said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not have been 
appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as 
the currency of select list had expired as soon as the 
number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, 
appointment beyond the number of posts advertised would 
B 
amount to filling up future vacancies meant for direct 
candidates in violation of quota rules. Therefore, the 
appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for 
themselves. The question that remains for consideration 
is whether there is any ground for challenging the c 
regularisation of the private respondents." 
The determination rendered by this Court in the aforesaid 
judgments, substantiates the view expressed by us in the 
foregoing paragraphs. 
D 1 
14. It is in the background of the aforesaid factual and legal 
position, that the High Court recorded some observations in its 
order dated 29.10.2011 passed in Contempt (SWP no.157 of 
2011 ). The aforesaid observations were advisory in nature. 
Rather than initiating action against the appellants for having 
E 
missed the point, while considering the claim of the respondent 
in contempt jurisdiction, the High Court in its wisdom required 
the appellants to correct the mistake committed by the 
appellants. The High Court did not, in the first instance, initiate 
any coercive action against the appellants. In the aforesaid view 
F 
of the matter it is apparent, that the appellants unnecessarily 
preferred a letters patent appeal to assail the order of the High 
Court dated 29.10.2011, on a technical plea, that the High Court 
in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction could not have dealt with 
the merits of the claim of the respondent. The same issue is 
G 
being pursued now before us on technical grounds of 
maintainability of the letters patent appeal preferred by the 
appellants before the High Court (out of which the instant 
appeals have arisen). 
15. In so far as the technical objections raised by the 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A appellants is concerned, reliance, in the first instance was 
placed by the learned counsel on Prithawi Nath Ram v. State 
of Jharkhand & Others, (2004) 7 SCC 261, wherein this Court 
opined, that a court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, 
dealing with an application alleging non compliance of its 
B earlier order, could not examine the rightness or wrongness of 
that order, nor could it issue further directions. Reliance was 
also placed on V. M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju & 
Anr., (2004) 13 SCC 610, wherein this Court held, that a 
contempt court was precluded from adjudicating on the merits 
c of a controversy by passing any supplemental order, in addition 
to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.