http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: JIWANI KUMARI PAREKH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SATYABRATA CHAKRAVORTY, MANAGING DIRECTORAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/10/1990

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  326            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 246  1990 SCC  (4) 737        JT 1990 (4)   174  1990 SCALE  (2)833

ACT:       Contempt      of     Courts     Act,     1971:      S. 2(b)--Contempt---Committal for--Wilful or deliberate disobe- dience of Court’s orders--Necessity for.

HEADNOTE:        By  its  order  dated January 16, 1990  in  the  writ petition,  the Court had directed respondent No. 4  to  band over possession of the premises requisitioned under the West Bengal  Premises Requisition and Control  (Temporary  Provi- sions) Act, 1947, within nine weeks subject to their obtain- ing any order from the High Court or acquiring any independ- ent   right within that period to retain possession.        In  the meantime, the Land Acquisition (West,  Bengal Amendment)  Act,  1986, which inserted s. 49A  in  the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as applicable to the State, came  into force  on February 14, 1990 permitting acqusition of a  part of a house. A week thereafter the State Government initiated acquisition process in respect of the said premises. Notifi- cations  under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act  were issued,  and  the Land Acquisition Collector  authorised  to take possession under s. 17(1) of the Act. However, on March 20, 1990 in a writ challenging the validity of the  acquisi- tion  proceedings the High Court directed the status quo  to be maintained regarding possession.        In  this  contempt petition, the  petitioner  alleged that  the  respondent had deliberately failed to  hand  over possession in terms of the order dated January 16, 1990. The acquisition was also assailed as being patently bad in law.        HELD:  1.  Before a party can be committed  for  con- tempt,  then must be a wilful or deliberate disobedience  of the orders of the Court In the instant case, no such  wilful or  deliberate or reckless disobedient, of the  order  dated January 16, 1990 has been committed by the respondent to the contempt petition. [249F] 2.  The question whether the acquisition is valid or not  is pending 247 for  decision  in  the High Court. In  case  the  petitioner succeeds the respondent would have remained in possession of the  said  premises for a long time after they  should  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

handed-over the possession. They are, therefore, directed to deposit  an amount of Rs. I0,000 per month  commencing  from 1st October, 1990 in the Court in addition to Rs.15,000  per month they are already paying under the earlier  directions. [250A-C]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIl, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No.  71 of 1990.                      AND       Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 1990. IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 1222 of 1983. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     Shanti Bhushan, Bashant Bhushan, Bohla Prasad Singh  for the Petitioner.     Kapil  Sibal,  Additional Solicitor  General,  Ashok  H. Desai,  Solicitor  General, Tapas Roy, Ratin  Das  and  D.K. Sinha for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KANIA,  J.  Seth Mannalal Surana Memorial Trust  is  the owner of a building situate at 7/ID, Lindsay Street, Calcut- ta,  one  of the busiest streets in Calcutta where  the  New Market is situated. The petitioner is the lessee of the said building  from the said Trust. On February 25, 1958, a  por- tion  of  the  ground-floor premises in  the  said  building admeasuring  4198 Sq. ft. (referred to hereinafter  as  "the said premises") was requisitioned by the Government of  West Bengal  under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and  Con- trol (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the West Bengal Act"). The purpose for which the said premises were requisitioned was establishing the main  show- room  of  West  Bengal  Handicraft  Development  Corporation Limited, a West Bengal Government Undertaking. The said show room  is  called  "Manjusha" and has become  a  landmark  in Calcutta.  In H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra and  Others, [1984] 2 SCC 337 this Court held that the provisions for, 248 requisition  could be resorted to only where  premises  were required  for  a temporary purpose but not where  they  were required for a permanent purpose. If premises were  required for a permanent purpose, they have to be acquired in accord- ance with law. Following upon this decision, the  petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1 1222 of 1983 in this Court  praying  for  a mandatory order  directing  that  the premises  should be derequisitioned and handed over  to  the petitioner.  Certain interim applications were made in  this Court  and  orders were passed thereon to which  it  is  not necessary to refer in this Judgment.       By an order dated January 16, 1990, certain directions were  given  to respondent No. 4 in the writ  petition.  The relevant portion of the said order runs as follows: "In  view of the earlier orders, we direct respondent No.  4 to  hand over the possession of the premises in question  to the petitioner within nine weeks from today subject to their obtaining  any  order from the Calcutta High  Court  in  the appeal  pending  in  that Court against the  decision  of  a learned  Single Judge in W.P. No. 2063 of 1987 or  acquiring any  independent  right  to retain possession  of  the  suit premises within that period.       It is contended by Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned  coun- sel  for  the petitioner that as the  respondents  have  not succeeded  in  obtaining any order from  the  Calcutta  High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Court  in  the said appeal or in acquiring  any  independent right  to retain possession of the said premises within  the period  of nine weeks from January 16, 1990, as set  out  in the said order, they were bound to hand over the  possession of  the said premises to the petitioner and  have  committed contempt as they have deliberately failed to do so.       We find that it is not possible to accept the  submis- sion set out hereinabove. On February 21, 1990, the  Govern- ment of West Bengal issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of  West ’Bengal,  declaring its intention to acquire the said  prem- ises.  On February 27, 1990, the said declaration  was  duly published.  By the beginning of March 1990  the  declaration under  section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in  respect  of the said premises was duly made and published and on 1st  of March.    1990 the Government of West Bengal authorised  the First  Lanisition Collector to take possession of  the  said premises  under section 17(1) of the Land  Acquisition  Act. Public notices were given on 9th March, 249 1990. A few days later, the trustees of the said trust which owned the said building filed a writ petition in the Calcut- ta  High Court challenging the validity of  the  acquisition proceedings  in respect of the said premises which had  been initiated consequent upon the amendment of the Land Acquisi- tion  Act as applicable to the State of West Bengal  and  on 20th  March,  1990,  the Calcutta High  Court  directed  the status quo to be maintained regarding possession.     It  is clear that unless the said order dated March  20, 1990, is vacated, it is not possible for the respondents  to proceed with the acquisition and acquire title to the  prem- ises.  The contention of the learned counsel for  the  peti- tioner is that the acquisition is patently bad in law as  it is  not open to the Government to acquire the said  premises on  the ground-floor of the said building without  acquiring the corresponding area on the upper floors. It was submitted by him that such acquisition would be clearly bad in law  in spite of the amendment carried out to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of West Bengal by the  insertion of Section 49 A therein by  Land  Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1986, which came into force  on February 14, 1990, after obtaining the consent of the Presi- dent of India. Section 49A permits acquisition of a part  of a  house. In our view, the question whether the  acquisition is valid or not is pending for decision in the Calcutta High Court  in the said writ petition filed by the said trust  as owner  of the building challenging the validity of the  said amendment.     In  our  opinion, before a party can  be  committed  for contempt, there must be a wilful or deliberate  disobedience of  the orders of the Court. In the present case, we do  not find that any such wilful or deliberate or reckless  disobe- dience  of our order dated January. 16, 1990, has been  com- mitted  by the respondent to the contempt  petition.  Hence, the  contempt petition is dismissed. There will be no  order as to costs.     We  hope  that the Calcutta High Court will be  able  to dispose  of the said writ petition challenging the  validity of the said amendment as early as possible.     Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 1990 in writ petition No. 11222 of 1983 is not pressed and is allowed to be  with- drawn with liberty to renew the same if any occasion arises. Although  we  are of the view that the  respondent  has  not commit- 250

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

ted  contempt,  we do realise that in  case  the  petitioner succeeds  in  the writ petition, the respondent  would  have remained in possession of the said premises for a long  time after  they  should have handed over the possession  of  the same  to  the petitioner. We find that  the  respondent  has already been directed to pay compensation for the use of the said  premises  at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per  month  by  an order of this Court passed over two years earlier. We direct that the respondent shall deposit, in addition, an amount of Rs.  10,000 per month commencing from 1st October, 1990,  in the  Court,  the  first of such deposits to be  made  on  or before 20th October, 1990, and deposits for each  succeeding month  to be made by 15th day of each succeeding month.  The amounts deposited shall be invested by the Registrar-General at suitable intervals in a nationalised bank in fixed depos- it after consulting the parties. P.S.S. 251