STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus PANDURANG K. PANGARE AND ORS .

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 13-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
..... 
PANDURANG K. PANGARE AND ORS . 
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 
[R.M. SAHAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Cbntempt of Court Act, 197~onstruction on land-Court prohibiting 
construction-Person alleged to have disobeyed the order already sold the 
land-Held, not guilty of contempt or perjury but was unfair to Court-Cost 
of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the alleged contemner. 
c 
The State Government issued a notification whereby it acquired the 
land belonging to the respondent. The respondent filed a writ petition in 
the High Court challenging the said acquisition. The High Court allowed 
the petition. The State Government filed S.L.P. in this Court against the 
D 
said judgment. In the meantime the respondent sold his land. Sub-
sequently this Court passed an order that there would be no construction. 
However, it was found by this Court that construction was being carried 
on which was denied by the respondent. The appellant filed two application 
in this Court against the respondent - one for contempt and the other for 
perjury as he deliberately misled the Court by suppressing facts and E 
making untrue allegations which was IJ_enied by the respondent. 
Disposing of the application, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The order prohibiting any construction to be raised over 
.. 
the land in dispute was passed by this Court. It is clear that the respondent F 
had sold his land before the prohibitory order was passed by this Court. 
There is thus no option but to reject the contempt application against the 
respondent. (53-H, 54-A, DJ 
1.2. As regards the application for prejury it must be stressed that G 
this Court was bamed by the conduct o.f the respondent even though he 
had sold the property. Yet it was the respondent who was not only appear-
ing in this Court but was assuring through his counsal and contesting that 
no construction was going on in the plot in dispute. The explanation of the 
respondent that a portion was still in his possession is not convincing. 
Since the respondent had sold the property and he was not making any H 
49 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 
A construction on the portion which was in his occupation there was no 
occasion for him to make a statement which was apt to mislead the Court. 
Technically speaking he may be right that he was not making any construc-
tion. But factually he was wrong as construction activity was going on in 
the plot. He may not be guilty of contempt or perjury but he was certainly 
B unfair to the Court. It is not proposed to 'take any action against him for 
perjury but he is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 which shall be 
deposited by him within one month with the Legal Aid Committee of this 
Court. [54-E-H, 55-A-B] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 2 of 1993. 
AND 
Contempt Petition No. 389 of 1993. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 7212 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.8~f the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 3585 of 1984. 
S. Ganesh, Mrs. Reema Bhandari and M~. Shroff for the Appellant. 
Ashok H. Desai, U.R. Lalit, Ms Bharti Bheda, D.M. Nargolkar and 
Rajinder Mathur for the Respondents. 
AS. Bhasme for the State. 
The Judgment of the Cm~rt was delivered by 
i 
R.M. SARAI, J. These are two applications filed by Maharashtra 
Housing and Area Development Authority (in brief 'MHADA') - one for 
taking proceedings for contempt against the opposite parties and other for 
G initiating proceedings for perjury against Shri P.K. Pangare (referred in 
brief as 'Pangare'), the respondent in S.L.P. a1.d opposite party No. 1 in 
the contempt petition. 
Before adverting to these applications it is necessary to mention in 
brief the background in which these applications came to be filed. On 12th 
H January 1980 a Notification was issued under Sectilin 41(3) of the 
) 
' 
STATEOFMAHARASHTRAv. PANGARE[SAHAI,J.] 
51 
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (referred as 'the A 
Act') by the Deputy Secretary of the Government, Housing and Special 
Assistant Department, Government of Maharashtra whereby it was notified 
that the lands mentioned in the Schedule vested in the Government of 
Maharashtra. In pursuance of this Notification name of MHADA was 
mutated over survey no. 18. The acquisition was challenged by the owner, 
Pangare by Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1981 on 12th November 1981. It was 
allowed on 8th November 1983 following the judgment rendered in Writ 
Petition No. 4192 of 1981 by which sub-sections
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.