http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6099 of 2001

PETITIONER: Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by L.Rs

RESPONDENT: State of U. P. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2007

BENCH: C. K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6100 OF 2001 Somendra Singh & Anr.                              .....        Appellants Versus State of U. P. & Ors.                                     .....     Respondents  W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6101 OF 2001 Jagdish Pal Singh                                         .....        Appellant Versus State of U. P. & Ors.                                     .....     Respondents  WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 480 of 2004 IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 6099 of 2001

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.           These appeals (being Civil Appeal Nos. 6099, 6100 and  6101 of 2001) are directed against a common judgment and  order dated 28th February, 2000 passed by the Division Bench  of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the  impugned order, the High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous  Petition Nos. 31681/1998, 32856/1998 and 32857/1998 filed  by the petitioners-appellants herein challenging the  correctness and validity of the Award passed by the Collector  under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the Act"].   

These appeals are taken up and heard together and are  decided by this common judgment.            Facts necessary to understand and comprehend the  controversy involved in these cases are briefly stated as  under:-           The appellants are the owners/bhoomidars of different  parcels of lands in village Dantal, District Meerut, Uttar  Pradesh [for short "U.P."].  As per the Zonal Development Plan,  the lands of the appellants fall under Zone-IV.  On  11.06.1985, the State of U.P. issued a Notification under  Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire 168 bighas of land  including the land of the appellants for construction of  residential/commercial buildings by the Meerut Development  Authority (MDA) \026 respondent No.3 herein under a Planned  Development Scheme.  Declaration under Section 6 of the Act  was published in the Official Gazette on 13.6.1985.  On  19.7.1985, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was  published in the local newspapers and Declaration under  Section 6 of the Act was published in the newspapers on  25.07.1985.  The substance of both the Notifications was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

published in the local newspapers on 25.07.1985.  The  provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were also invoked and  enquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with.         The appellants and some more owners of the lands filed  separate writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad in the year 1985 challenging the validity of the  Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act inter alia on the  grounds that the lands of the owners had not been acquired  for public purpose and that the action of the State  Government in taking recourse to the provisions of Section 17  of the Act was arbitrary and discriminatory.  The Division  Bench allowed the writ petitions in part vide order dated  14.01.1988 by holding that the substance of the two  Notifications contemplated by Section 4 and Section 6 of the  Act was given on the same day, i.e. on 25.07.1985 in the  locality, therefore, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act  would be invalid in terms of the amended provisions of Section  17(4) of the Act.  Consequently, declaration under Section 6 of  the Act was quashed.         Feeling aggrieved, the appellants and the MDA both had  challenged the order of the High Court by special leave  petitions in this Court in the year 1988.         This Court granted leave in all the special leave petitions.   Civil Appeal No. 1828 of 1988 filed by the MDA was allowed by  the Court vide judgment dated 19.09.1996.  The appeals of the  claimants including the appellants were dismissed.  The Land  Acquisition Officer was directed to pass the Awards within a  period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of  this Court [see Meerut Development Authority v. Satbir Singh &  Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 462].         It appears from the record that thereafter the  respondents herein had conducted a fresh survey of the lands  and prepared a site plan marking the lands in different colours  as per the nature and extent of the areas.  On 20.10.1997, the  Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in respect of 22  bighas 16 biswas and 12 biswansi of land and an area of 54  bighas 11 biswas and 16 biswansi was excluded from the  acquisition including some portions of the lands of the  appellants because some constructions were found having  been raised over that extent of land by the people residing  near and around the area and the MDA had declined to take  possession of the constructed area.  It is the case of the  appellants that the Land Acquisition Officer made an Award  on 18.09.1998 in respect of their acquired land without giving  any notice or hearing to the appellants and also beyond the  period of two years.   The respondents notified the making of  the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer in "Dainik Jagran"  (a Hindi daily newspaper).  The appellants filed Civil Writ Petitions in the year 1998  in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the  Award inter alia on the grounds that the Award was made by  the Land Acquisition Officer after the statutory period as  contemplated under Section 11A of the Act.  The High Court  granted stay of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.   Finally, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions by  holding that the Award marked as Annexure-4, specifically  referred to 13.08.1985, the date of publication of declaration  under Section 6 of the Act and accepting the said date as the  last date of publication and the fact that stay was operating  since 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996, the Award dated 18.09.1998  was held having been made within the period of limitation as  envisaged by Section 11A of the Act and as such the  proceedings initiated for acquisition would not lapse.  The  appellants were directed to handover the possession of the  acquired land within three months from the date of the order.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

The order of the High Court would reveal that subsequently at  the request of the counsel, six months’ time was granted to the  appellants and other persons who were parties before the High  Court for handing over the possession of the lands to the  respondents.  Now, the appellants are before this Court in  these appeals. Shri Anil Raj Kumar, Officer on Special Duty, MDA,  respondent No.4 herein, in his counter affidavit states that the  High Court has taken into consideration the Award passed by  the Collector specifically referring to 13.08.1985, the date of  publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act and the  fact that the stay order was in operation w.e.f. 02.08.1985 till  19.09.1996.  It is also stated that the High Court has upheld  the Award having been passed on 18.09.1998 within the  period of limitation as prescribed by Section 11A of the Act  and as such the land acquisition proceedings would not lapse  as contended by the appellants.  He reasserted that  declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on  13.08.1985 and not on 25.07.1985 as alleged by the  appellants. Smt. Nisha Goel, Additional District Magistrate (Joint  Organisation),  Meerut, in joint counter affidavit, filed on  behalf of State of U.P.-respondent No.1, District  Magistrate/Collector, Meerut \026 respondent no.2 and Additional  District Magistrate (Joint Organisation), Meerut - respondent  no. 3 in paragraph 4(d) has stated the details of the dates on  which the respective publications came to be made.    She has  specifically stated that the gist of the Notification under  Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(2) was made in  the locality on 13.08.1985 by beat of drums.   She stated that  out of the total area of 168 bighas 7 biswas and 4.15 biswansi  notified for acquisition, possession to the extent of 85 bighas  12 biswas and 12 biswansi was taken over on 16.08.1985 and  an Award with respect to the said land was also given on  24.07.1987.   Out of the remaining land measuring 77 bighas  8 biswas and 8.15 biswansi, an area of 46 bighas 12 biswas  and 17.5 biswansi is covered by unauthorised construction,  therefore, it was left out of acquisition. She stated that the  Award dated 18.09.1998 made by the Land Acquisition  Collector pertains only to land admeasuring 7 bighas 19  biswas and 9 biswansi. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with  their assistance perused the entire material on record. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently  contended that in terms of Section 11A of the Act, it is  mandatory to make an Award within two years from  25.07.1985, the date of the publication of the declaration  under Section 6 of the Act.  Admittedly, the Award was made  on 18.09.1998 and as such, according to the learned counsel,  the acquisition proceedings have become null and void.  He  urged that the High Court has failed to appreciate the import  of the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Act in proper  perspective and therefore, the order impugned in these  appeals deserves to be set aside.  Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  State of U. P. and MDA contended that the High Court was  right in holding that the substance of the declaration under  Section 6(2) was published in the locality on 13.08.1985 and  after excluding the period between 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996  in terms of Explanation to Section 11A of the Act, when the  land acquisition proceedings remained pending in the High  Court of Allahabad and later on till Civil Appeal No.1828 of  1988 and connected matters came to be finally decided by this  Court on 19.09.1996.  In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

a few provisions of the Act need to be noted.  They are Section  6(1) and (2) and Section 11A of the Act.   "Section 6. Declaration that land is  required for a public purpose.\027 (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of  this Act, when the Appropriate  Government is satisfied after considering  the report, if any, made under section 5A,  sub-section (2), that any particular land  is needed for a public purpose, or for a  company, a declaration shall be made to  that effect under the signature of a  Secretary to such Government or of some  officer duly authorised to certify its orders  and different declarations may be made  from time to time in respect of different  parcels of any land covered by the same  notification under section 4, sub-section  (1), irrespective of whether one report or  different reports has or have been made  (wherever required) under section 5-A,  sub-section (2): [Provided \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005. Provided further\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005]  [Explanation 1.\027 \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005.. Explanation 2.\027 \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005.....] (2 ) Every declaration shall be published  in the Official Gazette, [and in two daily  newspapers circulating in the locality in  which the land is situate of which at least  one shall be in the regional language, and  the Collector shall cause public notice of  the substance of such declaration to be  given at convenient places in the said  locality (the last of the date of such  publication and the giving of such public  notice, being hereinafter referred to as  the date of publication of the declaration),  and such declaration shall state] the  district or other territorial division in  which the land is situate, the purpose for  which it is needed, its approximate area,  and where a plan shall have been made  of the land, the place where such plan  may be inspected. (3) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

Section 11A of the Act and Explanation thereto (omitting  the proviso which is not material in this case) are as under: "11A. Period within which an award  shall be made.\027(1) The Collector shall  make an award under Section 11 within a  period of two years from the date of the  publication of the declaration and if no  award is made within that period, the  entire proceedings for the acquisition of  the land shall lapse: Provided\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005. Explanation.\027In computing the period of  two years referred to in this section the  period during which any action or  proceeding to be taken in pursuance of  the said declaration is stayed by an order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

of a Court shall be excluded.  

Section 6(2), on a plain reading, deals with the various  modes of publication and they are: (a) publication in the  Official Gazette, (b) publication in two daily newspapers  circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which  at least one shall be in the regional language and (c) causing  public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given  at convenient places in the said locality.  There is no option  left with anyone to give up or waive any mode and all such  modes have to be strictly resorted to.  The principle is well  settled that where any statutory provision provides a  particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing  or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed  therefor in the Act.  The provisions of Section 11A are intended to benefit the  land owner and ensure that the Award is made within a period  of two years from the date of the declaration under Section 6.   In ordinary course, therefore, when the Government fails to  make an Award within two years of the declaration under  Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and  its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings  are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section  11A, the proceedings will elapse.  The period of two years  referred to in Section 11A shall be computed by counting from  the last of the publication dates, as per the prescribed modes  of publication. In the present cases, as noted above, the appellants and  other landholders filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition in the  High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1985  whereby and whereunder they have challenged combined  Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act issued by the  State Government.  The High Court vide order dated  14.01.1988 partly allowed the writ petitions.  It appears from  the record that MDA and some claimants feeling aggrieved,  filed separate sets of appeals against the judgment dated  14.01.1988 in this Court. This Court allowed Civil Appeal  No.1828 of 1985 filed by MDA and dismissed the appeals of  the claimants.  By judgment dated 19.09.1996, this Court set  aside the order of the High Court and directed the Collector to  make Awards within a period of six months from the date of  the receipt of the order of this Court.  Finally, the Collector  made an Award on 18.09.1998 which came to be challenged  by the appellants before the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad inter alia on the ground that the Award was made  beyond the period as envisaged under Section 11A of the Act.   The High Court, as noted above, has held: "the Collector in the  Award (Annexure P-4) specifically refers 13.08.1985 as the  date of publication of Notification under Section 6.  Accepting  this as the last date of publication and the fact that stay was  operating since 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996, we hold the Award  passed on 18.09.1998 was within the limitation as envisaged  by Section 11A of the Act and as such the proceedings  initiated for acquisition does not lapse."   In our view, the order of the High Court is not legal and  justified.  The Division Bench seems to have committed a  patent error, despite the decisions of this Court in Eugenio  Misquita & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors. [(1997) 8 SCC 47] (which  does not appear to have been brought to its notice).   While  applying the ratio in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Markant  Singh [(1995) 2 SCC 497], this Court in Eugenio Misquita &  Ors. (supra), observed at SCC p. 52, Para 9 as under: "\005.The publication under Section 6 (2) of  the Act is for a different purpose, inter  alia, for reckoning the limitation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

prescribed under Section 11A of the Act.   This construction is supported by the  language employed in Section 6(2) of the  Act.  In particular, the word "hereinafter"  used in Section 6(2) will amply prove that  the last of the series of the publication  referred to under Section 6(2) is relevant  for the purposes coming thereafter,  namely, for making award under Section  11A.  The language employed in second  proviso to Section 6(1) also supports this  construction."

That apart, the words "the last of the dates of such  publication and the giving of such public notice being  hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the  declaration" leave no room for any assumptions to the  contrary.  Thus, the view taken by the High Court in these  cases not only runs counter to the mandate of law enacted by  Parliament, but is opposed to the dicta of this Court.   We have gone through the judgment of the High Court of  Allahabad dated 14.01.1988 passed in Civil Miscellaneous  Writ Petition No.10551 of 1985 and other connected petitions  earlier filed by the appellants and other owners of the land.  In  those cases, the High Court has observed that joint  Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6  of the Act was issued by the State Government on 25.07.1985.   The MDA in paragraph 13 of the grounds of appeal being Civil  Appeal No.1828 of 1988 on the record of this Court filed  against the order of the High Court dated 14.01.1998 has  specifically stated that the substance of the two notifications  contemplated by the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act  was given on 25.07.1985 in the locality.  Again, it was  reasserted and stressed that publication of substance in the  locality on the same day, i.e. on 25.07.1985, would not affect  the appellants’ rights adversely particularly when the  provisions of Section 5A, i.e. inviting objections against the  acquisition of the appellants’ lands, have been dispensed with.   The MDA has admitted in its grounds of appeal that substance  of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act  was given in the locality on 25.07.1985.  Now, Shri Anil Raj  Kumar, Officer on Special Duty of MDA, in his counter  affidavit filed before this Court in SLP (C) No.8331 of 2000 has  taken inconsistent stand when he states in para 2(II) thus: ’the  High Court has taken into conspectus the Award marked as  Annexure IV, specifically refers 13.08.1985 as a date of  publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Land  Acquisition Act, accepting this as a last date of publication  and the fact that stay order was in operation w.e.f. 2.8.1985  till 19.9.1996’.        The statement of Smt. Nisha Goel made in the counter  affidavit filed by her on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3  that the declaration of public notice by last mode under  Section 6(2) of the Act by beat of drums in the locality on  13.08.1985 manifestly is wrong and on the face of it contrary  to the contents of the Notice (Annexure R-2) filed by her with  the affidavit.  This notice dated 13.08.1985 was issued by the  Land Record Inspector, Block Rohta, Tehsil Meerut,  in  response to the letter of MDA dated 09.08.1985 and that of the  District Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, dated 01.08.1985.   The relevant substance of the notice reads as under:- "the land described in the enclosed list  situate in village Danta, Block Rohta,  Tehsil Meerut has been acquired by the  Meerut Development Authority for its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

residential scheme and letter for  obtaining its possession has been  received on 12.8.85 at 3 p.m. and  intimation of which has been given today  13.8.85 in village Dantal to all concerned  farmer and residents of village by beat of  drums and in loud voice that notification  had been published on 19.7.85,  25.7.1985 in daily newspapers, "Meerut  Samachar", Janta Express" and "Hamara  Yug" and Government Gazette.  Since the  land has been acquired for the residential  scheme of the Meerut Development  Authority, no farmer should change the  nature of rights in the land and the  possession of acquired land will be taken  on 16.3.85."  

This notice appears to have been signed by marginal  witnesses Har Pal Singh, Sudhir Kumar and Yash Vir Singh  and thumb mark by Chhote on 13.08.1985.  The language  employed in this notice would not prove that it was the last  mode of publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act.  In  substance, this notice appears to have been issued in  purporting exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act for  taking possession of the acquired land on 16.08.1985.    Thus,  this Notification, in no circumstances, would prove that it was  the last mode of publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the  Act.  This Court in General Manager, Department of  Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob s/o  Kochuvarkey Kalliath (dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(2003) 9 SCC 662]  has held that period of two years from the date of publication  of the declaration prescribed under Section 11A for passing  the Award, must be calculated from the last of the series of the  publications referred to under Section 6(2) of the Act. Again, in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar &  Ors. [(2003) 10 SCC 1], this Court reiterating the proposition  of law has held that modes of publication of declaration  prescribed under Section 6(2) are conjoint and cumulative and  all of them must be resorted to and completed.  Sub-section  (2) of Section 6 of the Act necessarily makes it abundantly  clear that the last of the dates of the publication and giving of  such public notice shall "hereinafter" be referred to as the date  of publication of the declaration and limitation period of two  years for making Award under Section 11A has to be counted  as the last of the dates out of the three modes of publication  specified in Section 6 of the Act.   It is not in dispute that the land acquisition proceedings  remained stayed vide order of the High Court of Allahabad in  the earlier writ petitions filed by the appellants as also during  the pendency of the SLPs filed by the MDA and the appellants  and other persons against the order dated 14.01.1988 of the  High Court of Allahabad, which were decided on 19.09.1996.   The Land Acquisition Collector has even failed to make the  Award within stipulated period of six months as directed by  this Court vide order dated 19.09.1996.  The ratio of the judgment in State of Haryana & Anr. v.  Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133], relied upon by the  respondents, is of no assistance or help to them.  In that case,  while dealing with the provisions of Sections 4(1), 5A and 6(2)  of the Act, this Court held: "since there is an opportunity  already given to the owner of the land or persons having  interest in the land to raise their objections during the inquiry  under Section 5A, or otherwise in case of dispensing with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

inquiry under Section 5A unless they show any grave  prejudice caused to them in non-publication of the substance  of the declaration under Section 6(1), the omission to publish  the substance of the declaration under Section 6(1) in the  locality would not render the declaration of Section 6 invalid.   However, this does not mean that the officers should not  comply with the requirement of law.  It is their duty to do it."   In the light of the settled principles of law in Eugenio  Misquita & Ors. (supra), General Manager, Department of  Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram (supra) and Bihar  State Housing Board (supra), the entire acquisition  proceedings for acquiring the land of the appellants  culminating in the Award made on 19.09.1998 after the period  contemplated in Section 11A of the Act shall elapse  completely.  The High Court was not correct and justified in holding  that the last date of publication of the declaration under  Section 6 was 13.8.1985 and not 25.07.1985.  In the earlier  civil writ petitions, the same High Court has accepted  25.07.1985 as the date of declaration under Section 6 of the  Act. No other point was urged by the parties. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment  of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad cannot be sustained.  The Civil Miscellaneous Writ  Petition Nos. 31681, 32856 and 32857 of 1998 filed by the  appellants before the High Court shall stand allowed.  These  appeals are allowed with costs. However, we make it clear that if the respondents are still  interested to acquire the land of the appellants, they are not  precluded from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with  law.   

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 480 OF 2004 IN CIVIL  APPEALNO. 6099 OF 2001

Kunwar Pal Singh, the original petitioner, filed Special  Leave Petition No. 8331 of 2000 in this Court against the final  judgment and order dated 28.02.2000 passed by the High  Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ  Petition No. 3168/1988.  The said special leave petition came  up for hearing on 10.07.2000 when this Court passed the  following order:- "Issue notice. Until further orders status quo as regards  the possession so far as the petitioner is  concerned to be maintained."

The matter came up for hearing on 28.08.2001 when this  Court granted special leave to the petitioner and directed the  interim order to continue in the meantime.  Kunwar Pal Singh  died during the pendency of C.A. No. 6099 of 2001 and now  his legal representatives are pursuing these proceedings. The controversy in these proceedings pertains to the  acquisition of the lands of the appellants by the State  Government for the benefit of Meerut Development Authority  [for short "the MDA"].  The State Government in the year 1985  issued joint notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land  Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] proposing  to acquire 168 bighas of land including the land of the  appellants.  The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on  20.10.1997 in respect of 2 biswas of land out of Plot No. 94.    An area of 3-16-5 bigha of land out of Plot No. 84 was left out  from acquisition.  The appellants stated that later on, after a  period of about 2 years without giving any notice to them, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Land Acquisition Officer made an Award dated 18.09.1998 in  respect of 12 biswas of land out of Plot No. 94 and 3-16-5  bigha land out of Plot No. 84.  The Award of the Land  Acquisition Collector was challenged by the appellants and  other land owners before the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad inter alia on the ground that the Award came to be  passed after the statutory period contemplated under Section  11A of the Act.  Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings  had lapsed.  The High Court dismissed the writ petitions of the  appellants and other claimants.  The appellants have filed  special leave petitions in this Court against the impugned  common order of the High Court.  In the special leave petition  out of which Civil Appeal No. 6099 of 2001 arises, the above- said interim order was passed by this Court.  The grievance of  the appellants in this contempt petition is that the MDA has  encroached upon 10 biswas of land in Plot No. 84, therefore,  the original appellant submitted representation dated  05.11.2003 requesting the MDA to get Plot No. 84 demarcated  on the spot.  The lower staff of MDA, for obvious reasons,  wanted to encroach upon another Plot No. 94 owned by the  appellants. The appellants submitted that second  representation was made on 9.02.2004 to the Commissioner,  MDA, requesting the MDA to remove its encroachment on 10  biswas of land of Plot No. 84 and no further encroachment  should be made by the Authority on Plot No. 94.  In response  to the representations of the appellants, Officer on Special  Duty, MDA, vide letter dated 21.05.2004 informed the original  appellant that because of the operation of the status quo order  passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 8331/2000, it was not  possible for the party to get the demarcation done on Plot No.  84 measuring 3-16-5 bighas.  The appellants alleged that the  District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut \026 respondent No. 2 and  the Additional District Magistrate (Joint Organisation), Meerut  \026 respondent No. 3 herein came to Plot No. 94 accompanied by  police force at about 18.45 hours with bull dozers.  One son of  the original appellant went to the site and informed  respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the other police officials not to  take law into their hands in demolishing the boundary wall of  their farm house, but despite the order of status quo passed by  this Court they had demolished the boundary wall and the  cattle sheds constructed by the original appellant in the  middle of the plot.  The appellants further alleged that  respondents - contemnor nos. 2 and 3 threatened to hand over  the possession of Plot No. 94 to some other persons and once  the construction work would be completed on that plot, no  Court would be able to get the possession restored to the  original appellant.  On these premises, the appellants have  prayed to deal with the contemnors for wilful and intentional  violation of the order of this Court dated 28.08.2001 and  punish them in accordance with law.   Shri Shantanu Kumar Trivedi, Additional Commissioner,  Meerut Division, (former Vice-Chairman), MDA, in his counter  affidavit has stated that the lands forming part of Khasra Nos.  84 and 94 (plots) were acquired for and on behalf of MDA for  construction of residential houses.  The Land Acquisition  Collector made an Award 18.09.1998 in respect of 12 biswas  land forming part of Plot No. 94 and 3 bighas 16 biswas and 5  biswani land out of Khasra No. 84.  He stated that MDA has  full respect to the orders of the Courts and the status quo  order passed by the Court was never disturbed by the MDA on  the spot.  It is his plea that after receiving the Report of Tehsil  Lekpal as well as of the Engineer, the MDA demolished the  existing unauthorized construction on Plot No. 88.  The  construction on Plot No. 94 after receipt of the Survey Report  was left undisturbed.  The deponent denied allegations of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

appellants regarding encroachment by the MDA over Khasra  No./Plot No.84.  He stated that because of the operation of the  status quo orders of this Court, the MDA could not oblige the  original appellant to get the area demarcated.  It is contended  by the deponent that the allegations made in the contempt  application by the appellants against the respondents are  wholly false and baseless.  However, the deponent submitted  that he has not committed any contempt of the orders of this  Court, still he has tendered unqualified apology for any  inconvenience caused to this Court.   Shri Anoop Sharma, Assistant Engineer and Shri Girija  Shankar Mall, Junior Engineer of MDA, have filed their  separate counter affidavits.  They have stated that the MDA  has not at all disturbed  the status quo order passed by this  Court in regard to the Plot Nos./Khasra Nos. 84 and 94  as  alleged by the appellants.  Their stand is that it was only in  respect of Plot No. 88 where development works were carried  on as the said area was out of the purview of the orders of any  court.  The allegations of wilful disobedience of the status quo  order passed by this Court are categorically denied by them.   However, both the officials have tendered an unconditional  apology.   Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and  having scrutinized in detail the counter affidavits of the  respondents, we are of the view that there is nothing before us  to show that the respondents have  wilfully flouted or  intentionally violated the status quo order dated 10.07.2000  and 28.08.2001 passed by this Court.  Therefore, it is not a fit  case for initiating any proceedings for contempt against the  respondents.   Consequently, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice discharged.