1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 5819  OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.20397/2005]

KANHAIYALAL MOTILAL TALERA ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Appellant herein filed a civil suit questioning the conduct of the Municipal

Corporation and other authorities as regards a purported attempt made by them to

take  forcible  possession  of  the  land  belonging  to  the  appellant,  without  taking

recourse to  proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An interim order of

injunction was passed in the said suit. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal thereagainst.  

2

Appellant and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation in Appeal From

Order No. 89/2003, which arose out of an order dated 7.10.2002 passed by the 5th Joint

Civil  Judge,  Senior  Division,  Pune,  in  Civil  Suit  No.  1111/2001,  entered  into  a

compromise, the  terms whereof read as under:

“1.  It  is  hereby  agreed  that  the  appellant  corporation  shall commence the acquisition proceedings with respect to land bearing serial No. 27B/1/B (part) and bearing CTS No. 1054 (part) situate at Village Chinchwad Tal. Haveli Dist. Pune which is required for road widening within a period of 15 days from today. The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall complete the same and declare the Award as expeditiously as possible.

2.  The  respondent  is  entitled  to  place  in  said  Land  Acquisition Proceedings  all  material  available  with  him  and  all  contentions necessary for the purpose of computing the compensation as per the provisions of law.

3.  It  is  hereby  agreed  that  as  soon  as  the  land  acquisition proceedings are commenced by the Appellant is entitled to construct road on the property, which has been taken in possession by them for the said purpose.

4. In view of these consent terms the Order dated 7.10.2002 passed by the learned Fifth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, below exhibit in Special Civil Suit No. 1111 of 2001 stands vacated, and Special Civil Suit No. 1111 of 2001 stands disposed of in the above terms.

5. No order as to costs.”   

It is not in dispute that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said consent

terms, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation sent a requisition for acquisition of

Civil Survey No. 1054 which belonged to the appellant.  It is also not in dispute that by

a notification issued in the year 1988 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, inter alia, Civil Survey No. 1057 was sought to be acquired.  

3

A contempt petition was filed by the appellant on the premise that despite an

agreement between the parties without initiating a fresh proceeding for acquisition of

C.S. No.  1054, the contemnors had taken recourse to obtaining forcible  possession

thereof.  

Before the High Court, however, a plea was taken that C.S. No. 1057 had

wrongly been mentioned in place of C.S. No. 1054 and possession thereof was taken

upon correction of the mistake.  

By  reason  of  the  impugned  judgment  the  contempt  petition  filed  by  the

appellant herein was dismissed by the  High Court, opining:

“The learned Advocates for the respondents while referring to the order passed by the lower court on 7.10.2002 and drawing attention, particularly  to  para  5  thereof,  sought  to  argue  that  similar contention was raised by the respondents before the trial Court and it  was  rejected.  Obviously,  it  was  rejected  merely  because  the records did not disclose the survey No. 1054 and its disclosed survey No. 1057. As it has been clarified in the affidavit that the same was on  account  of  mistake  in  recording  of  the  number,  the  decision which  was  passed  during  the  pendency  of  the  suit,  which  is  an interim order, cannot amount to final decision as regards the rights of  the parties in  relation to the said issue.  Undoubtedly,  the said issue  is  wide  open  for  adjudication  in  appropriate  proceedings. Nevertheless, as it has been clarified in these proceedings that there was a mistake in recording of the number and the land in question has already been acquired, the question of proceeding against the respondent for violation of the order dated 14.7.2003 does not arise at  all.  A mistake  in  recording  of  the  number cannot  change  the factual  situation if  the land in question has really been acquired. Same cannot  lead  to  the  conclusion  about  violation  of  the  order dated 14.7.2003 as there is no mandate to the respondents to acquire the land as such.”   

Appellant is, thus, before us.

4

Ms. Bengani, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Municipal

Corporation  being  the  requisitioning  authority  was  bound  by  the  terms  of  the

compromise.  It  was  furthermore  contended  that  the  plea  raised  on  behalf  of  the

respondents  that  a  mere  clerical  error  has  been  corrected,  is  mala  fide  as  would

appear from Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.   

Mr. Adkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of  respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4,

on the other hand, would contend that no contempt has been committed by his client

as within a period of 15 days from the date of entering into the consent terms steps

have been taken to acquire C.S. No. 1054.   

Ms.  Asha  G.  Nair,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of   the  State  of

Maharashtra, however, would support the impugned judgment.  

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of

the opinion  that  the  question  as  regards applicability  of  Section 13A of  the  Land

Acquisition Act is a debatable one and the same should have been gone into by the

High Court. The High Court dealt with the said question merely stating:

“Undoubtedly, in terms of Section 13A of the said Act, the collector is empowered to make necessary corrections as regards the clerical and arithmetical mistakes in the award. However, mere failure in that regard on the part of the collector cannot ensure to the benefit of the petitioner to contend that there was violation of the order of 14.7.2003, when in fact the said order did not direct acquisition of land as such.”

5

We may, however, note that such a contention has not been raised by the

appellant in the contempt application.  

Be that as it may, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this

case, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be subserved if the contempt

petition filed by the appellant herein is treated to be a writ petition and the questions

raised therein are gone into by the High Court. It is directed accordingly.  

The State of Maharashtra shall be impleaded in the said writ petition. The

parties shall be at liberty to amend their pleadings and all the contentions, including

the contentions raised herein shall be allowed to be raised before the High Court.  

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

..........................J (S.B. SINHA)

..........................J   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)    NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008.

6