UNION OF INDIA versus RESHMA YADAV AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 12-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
RESHMA VADA V AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
B 
Damages/Compensation-Liability to pay-Unauthorized occupation 
of shops/stalls despite court's order to deliver vacant possession-Highest 
bidder deprived occupation of shops/stalls thereby huge loss to exchequer C 
for wilful violation of court's order-Hence, contemnors liable to pay damages/ 
arrears of rent for the specified period-Estate Officer cannot exercise such 
power in terms of the 1971 Act since entire cause of action did not arise in 
a proceeding initiated under the Act-Public Premises (Eviction of 
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971---Section 7. 
In a writ petition, allotment of shops/stalls was challenged on the ground 
of illegality. High Court directed cancellation of allotment and framing of a 
policy regarding allotment of shops/stalls, and that allottees in possession 
not selected in the allotment, to vacate the shops/stalls within three months. 
Pursuant thereto, the policy was revised. Tenders were invited for allotment 
D 
of shops/stalls. Respondents did not participate in the tender nor their names E 
were amongst the persons selected in the tenders opened and remained 
unauthorized occupants of the shops/stalls. Appellant-Union oflndia issued 
notices to the respondents to vacate the shops and hand over the peaceful 
possession but the respondents failed to do so. Thereafter, contempt petition 
was filed, however, the same was dropped later since the respondents delivered F 
possession of the stalls/shops. 
The present application has been filed for the direction to the 
respondents-contemnors to pay damages/compensation for their use and 
unauthorized occupation of shops/stalls in their possession. 
Respondents-contemnors contended that this Court is not a proper forum 
to grant such prayer; and that such powers can be exercised by the Estate 
Officer in terms of section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised 
Occupants) Act, 1971. 
209 
G 
H 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the IA's, the Court 
HELD: The entire cause of action for the direction to the respondents-
contemnors to pay damages/compensation for their use and unauthorized 
occupation of shops/stalls in their possession arose not in a proceeding 
initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 
B 1971 but for wilful violation of this Court's Order. The respondents neither 
participated in the tender nor their names were included from amongst the 
select list and remained unauthorized occupants depriving the highest bidder 
to occupy the shops/stalls thereby incurring huge loss to the exchequer by 
reason of their contemptuous misbehaviour violating the order of the Highest 
C Court of the land. This would warrant the respondents to pay rent/damages at 
the rate quoted by the highest bidder against their shops/stalls for their 
unauthorised use and occupation till the date they delivered vacant possession 
as per the chart furnished giving details of the arrears of rent/damages 
payable by the contemnors. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay 
the arrears of rent/damages within the period specified.1216-A-DJ 
D 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 54 in Contempt Petition (C) 
No. 158/1998. 
IN 
E 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 585 of 1994. 
F 
G 
H 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Ranjeet Kumar, (A.C.), Indira Sawhney, R.S. Rana, V.K. Verma and 
Shreekant N. Terdal for the Petitioner. 
Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Krishna Kumar, M.C. Dhingra. R.N. Keshwani, Pratibha 
Jain, Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish Garg, K.K. Gupta, Rani Chhabra, Prem Malhotra 
and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.K.SEMA, J. Heard the parties. 
Writ Petition (C) No.585 of 1994 was disposed of by this Court on 
I 1.10.1996 inter alia with the following directions: 
"Now, to take care of this illegality, we have to take two steps. First, 
U.0.1. v. RESHMA Y ADAV [SEMA . .I.] 
211 
cancel the allotments. To decide as to who should get the shops/ A 
stalls, the Government would first consider whether its policy of 1994, 
and categorization made by it need alteration in any way. While 
undertaking this work, the Government would first consider whether 
its policy of 1994 and categorization made by it need alteration in any 
way. While undertaking this work, the Government would make such 
provisions in the policy which are

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