http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil)  136-137 of 2005

PETITIONER: Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

RESPONDENT: Smt. Vilasiniben Ramachandran & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/2007

BENCH: CJI & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 136-137 OF 2005 IN  C.A. No. 6798-6799 OF 2004 WITH I.A. NO. 21-30, I.A. NOS. 17-18 & I.A. NO. 1 IN  I.A. NOS. 17-18  IN  C.A. NO. 6798-6799 OF 2004

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

This Court, on 15.10.2004, by a detailed judgment  and order passed in Civil Appeal No. 6798 and 6799 of  2004 issued, inter alia, the following directions:  "73. In the result, we allow the appeals in part and  direct the Collector, Bhavnagar to grant non- agricultural permission in respect of the land of about  76 acres 36 guntas comprised in Survey No. 469/1,  Bhavnagar District after collecting the non-agricultural  tax calculated at the rate of 5% per sq. m applicable at  the time when the application was made by the  applicant i.e. 24.2.3003 which aggregate to Rs.  15,57,540.  Dispute, if any, with regard to the tax  calculated and the rate has to be agitated separately  and collected later.  The Commissioner of Bhavnagar  Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the  application for sanction within four weeks, the layout  and building plans as per the current development  control rules and pass order in accordance with law.

74. We also direct Respondents 1 and 2 to collect non- agricutural permission charges and conversion  charges for the lands bearing Survey Nos. 470/1,  471/2, 471/3 and 472 situated at Village Vadva,  Bhavnagar as prevalent in the year 1981."

The petitioners sent a representation to the  Government along with a copy of the aforementioned  judgment with a request to comply with the directions  contained in the judgment.  The petitioners, thereafter  sent several reminders to the respondents to comply with  the said judgment.  Notification was issued by the State Government  wherein the lands of RS Nos. 471/2 and 472 were  notified as a water body in purported compliance with  the High Court’s order dated 02.08.2002.  By the said  order, the High Court had directed the State Government  to notify the water bodies in the territory of the State that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

vest in the State and/or the Area Development  Authorities or the Local Bodies including the Panchayat  in the Official Gazette within 3 months from the date of  this order and not a private land.   The Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department  wrote to the Collector, Bhavnagar District that the  Government had accepted the said judgment of this  Court except for the land of RS No. 472 and requested  the Collector to take steps for the entire survey Nos.  except for the abovementioned survey No. 472 and to  immediately inform the Government about the steps  taken by him.  This communication was sent on  16.02.2005.  Although the direction from the Revenue  Department was for accepting the judgment of this Court  except for the land covered by survey No. 472, the  Collector not only refused to follow the judgment for  survey NO. 472 but also for 80 acres of survey No.  471/2.  On 28.06.2005, the above contempt petition was  filed in this Court with the following prayer:-  (a)     "initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents  no. 1 to 10 herein for deliberately and willfully not  complying with the specific directions of this Hon’ble  Court contained in the judgment dated 15.10.2004 in  Civil Appeal No. 6798-99 of 2004;

(b)     direct the respondents to forthwith grant non- agricultural permission and other necessary building  and development permission in respect of part of the  land of R.S. No. 471/2 (admeasuring about 80 acres)  and 472 (admeasuring about 50 acres) of Village  Vadva, District Bhavnagar.

(c)     Pass such other and suitable order/s as this Hon’ble  Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and  circumstances of the case and in the interest of  justice."

On 25.07.2005, this Court issued notice regarding  non-compliance of directions contained in para 74  confining survey Nos. 471/2 and 472.  After the notice  was issued in the contempt petition, the State  Government filed an application for directions in IA No.  17 and 18 of 2005 for certain directions.    On 09.05.2006, this Court passed the following  order:- "The clarification sought for in these contempt  petitions is by way of review petition.  Let the entire  matter be placed before the appropriate bench which  delivered the judgment dated 15.10.2004.

The contemnors must be present on the next date of  hearing". This Court corrected the mistake in the order dated  09.05.2006 and passed the following order: "In our order dated 9.5.2006 in place of Contempt  Petition the IAs shall be recorded".

A letter was written on 10.01.2007 to the Revenue  Department by the Collector to take steps as the State  Government has taken a decision to accept the judgment  of this Court dated 15.10.2004 for land admeasuring 17  acres 4 guntas, 32 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas upon  which sundervas bungalow is located.  However, to  nullify the aforesaid acceptance of the judgment in  respect of the land mentioned in survey Numbers above,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

permission for non-agricultural use has been given for  the recreation use and not for the residential use thus  depriving the petitioner of the right to construct  residential building.   We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior  counsel for the petitioner in the contempt petition and  Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents  in contempt petition and the petitioners in IA No. 17 and  18 of 2005.  At the time of hearing, our attention was drawn to  the details of the earlier proceedings where the  contention was that the land on survey Nos. 472 and  471/2 which form part of the lake/water body was taken  by the State Government.  Our attention was also drawn  to the following documents:  "1. Affidavit-in-reply dated 12.12.2001 filed by Shri  Kantilal A Patel, former District Collector, Bhavnagar  before this Hon’ble Court in IA Nos. 2-3 of 2001 in  Civil Appeal No. 5556 of 2001.

2. Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 21.3.2002 filed by Shri  Natvarlal R Agravat, Legal Officer, Bhavnagar  Municipal Corporation before this Hon’ble Court in  Civil Appeal No. 5556 of 2001 filed by the Bhavnagar  Municipal Corporation.

3. Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 21.3.2002 filed by Shri  Natvarlal R Agravat, Legal Officer, Bhavnagar  Municipal Corporation before this Hon’ble Court in  Special Leave Petition No. 1561 of 2002 filed by the  Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation.

4. Synopsis filed in Civil Appeal No. 5556 of 2001

5. Chronology of events filed on behalf of Bhavnagar  Municipal Corporation in the aforementioned Civil  Appeal No. 5556 of 2001

6. Civil Appeal No. 5556 of 2001 after elaborate  arguments was dismissed as withdrawn by this  Hon’ble Court vide order dated 14.11.2002.

7. Review Petition No. 33 of 2003 filed for the review of  the judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 5.12.2002  passed in SLP No. 1561-63 of 2002.  The affidavit in  support of this review petition was filed by Mr. Kantilal  A Patel.

8. The Review Petition was dismissed by this Hon’ble  Court vide order dated 6.2.2003."

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi invited our attention to the  various findings and categoric directions issued by this  Court to the respondents State of Gujarat and its officers.  It is well settled that the judgments of this Court are  binding on all the authorities under Article 142 of the  Constitution and it is not open to any authority to ignore  a binding judgment of this Court on the ground that the  full facts had not been placed before this Court and/or  the judgment of this Court in the earlier proceedings had  only collaterally or incidentally decided the issues raised  in the show-cause notices.  Such an attempt is to belittle  the issues and the orders of this Court.  We are pained to  say that the then Deputy Collector has scant respect for  the orders passed by the Apex Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

Our attention was also drawn to the letter dated  16.02.2005 by the Government of Gujarat to the  Collector, Bhavnagar regarding the judgment of this  Court dated 15.10.2004 and letter dated 11.05.2005 of  the Collector, Bhavnagar in No. RO/KB-21/2005 and, in  particular, to para 6 of the said communication which  reads thus: "In connection with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex  Court dated 15.10.2004, the Revenue Department of  the State Government vide letter dated 16.2.2005 at  Reference No. 3 had accepted the judgment rendered  by the Hon’ble Apex Court for all the lands except for  the land of RS No. 472 of Mauje Vadva.  Thus,  directions have been given to this office to initiate  process for the land of all the survey numbers except  for the area of S.No. 472 of Vadva.  For initiating  further process in connection with the letter dated  16.2.2005 of the Government, by the order at  Reference No.5 whereby the Scheme was sanctioned  for construction of dwelling units for weaker sections  of the society for total 34,47,918 sq.mtrs. out of which  about 80 acres of land of Acres 550 and 31 gunthas of  RSN 471/2 is being shown as "Water Body" in the  sanctioned development plan of the Bhavnagar Area  Development Authority and as the land of S.No. 472 is  to be kept pending  for the present, except this lands  as well as the land for which earlier non-agricultural  permission has been granted, considering the land of  acres 699-03 gunthas (2829020.5 sq. mtrs) forming  part of ULC Scheme to be Deemed NA (land termed to  be non-agricultural land) pursuant to the judgment  dated 15.10.2004 of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after  assessment under the provisions of Section 48 of the  Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, it was intimated  by this Office to the State Government by letter at  Reference No. 4 that permission can be given."

Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel further  submitted that despite our clear and unambiguous  direction the respondent No.3 \026 Deputy Secretary,  Revenue Department of the State Government under  specific instructions from respondent Nos. 1 and 2  Secretaries of the Revenue Department has vide letter  dated 16.02.2005 conveyed to the Collector the stand of  the Government not to accept the judgment dated  15.10.2004 in respect of the land admeasuring 50 acres  situated in survey No. 472 and grounds which are wholly  untenable.  Pursuant thereto respondent No. 8 \026 the  Collector acting on the aforementioned instruction of  respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has also refused to grant  such no objection in respect of survey No. 471/2 and  472.  A perusal of the said correspondence would, in our  view, show that the respondents have expressly stated  that the Government has decided not to accept the  judgment of this Court insofar as the aforementioned  lands are concerned.  It is needless to emphasize that  judgments of this Court are binding on all authorities  and the Government cannot arrogate to its powers to  reject the judgment of this Court.  As regards the land  admeasuring 80 acres in survey Nos. 471/2 and 50 acres  in 472 are concerned, the respondent-authorities are  refusing to grant the NA permission on the self same  issues, namely, that the said land is a government land.   The said issues have already been finally concluded in  favour of the petitioners by the various judgments of this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Court in the earlier litigations. In para 68 of the judgment, this Court has observed  as under:- "68. From the above discussion by us and of the  record would clearly go to show that the following  issues are covered by the earlier proceedings and  finally decided by the Courts and reached its finality  and which cannot be reopened again: 1) The lands in Survey Nos. 469/1, 470/1, 471/2,  471/3 and 472 aggregating about 952 acres sold in  favour of the appellants by the former ruler with the  permission of the Collector and registered has become  final and conclusive. 2) The lands in question being pasture land (Bid land)  and not being fit for cultivation was excluded from the  purview of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act,  1960. 3) The Right, Title Entry made in the revenue records  in respect of the lands in question in the name of the  appellant has become final and conclusive and,  therefore, removal of the appellant from any of the  Survey Numbers in question is not permissible. 4) The declaration issued by the competent authority  and Additional Collector under the ULC Act, in  exercise of the power under Section 21(1) of the ULC  Act after verifying the title of the appellant in respect of  the above survey numbers is final and conclusive. 5) The writ petition filed by the Bhavnagar  Municipality for quashing and setting aside the order  dated 6.12.1979 granting exemption to the lands and  sanctioning the scheme under Section 21 of the ULC  Act was valid and legal. 6) It is not in dispute that the appellants have raised  construction on the lands and the lands have been  fully developed, save and except, the lands in Survey  No. 469/1. 7) The orders dated 9.11.1979 and 20.11.1979  whereby the Deputy Collector dropped the proceedings  filed by the former Ruler under Section 8 of the ALC  Act for a declaration that the sale deed dated  31.3.1971 was not effected by him with a view to  defeat the ALC Act was rejected by the Tribunal in  Revision application by the State Government. In  respect of the ALC proceedings, the said order was  finally concluded since under the ALC Act no further  appeal was preferred by the State Government. 8) This also was not in dispute that pursuant to the  cabinet decision of the Gujarat Government, the  appellants withdraw all the pending proceedings and,  thereafter notices were issued under Rule 108(6) of the  Bombay Land Revenue Code seeking to revise the right  and title Entry No. 1950 principally contending that  the sale deed dated 31.3.1971 was invalid. On the abovementioned grounds, the mutation entry  was sought to be cancelled. The Deputy Collector,  Bhavnagar held that the ownership of the land in  question was of the appellant and a decision was  taken that the revenue mutation No. 1950 as recorded  in Village Form No. 6 was legal and valid which was  also decided to withdraw the show cause notice dated  27.7.1991 and to drop all the proceedings commenced  under the said notice. 9) The Deputy Collector also confirmed the order of the  City Mamlatdar dated 16.9.1962. The reservation of  Survey No. 469/1 in favour of the Bhavnagar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

University had lapsed. 10) The High Court, in its judgment, in SCA No. 1032  of 1996 quashed the notice dated 25.1.1996 of the  Collector. The High Court observed that it is unfair for  the Collector to raise various issues such as illegal sale  of bid land, breach of the Saurashtra Gharkhed  Ordinance, ALC Act etc. which were closed and  decided earlier. 11) The issue of ULC Act and ALC Act was concluded  by the judgment of the High Court in SCA No. 941 of  1980. 12) No further action can be taken for disturbing the  finality of the mutation entry in view of the judgment  of the High Court rendered on 24.11.2000 in SCA No.  1032 of 1996 and, therefore, there is no question of  disturbing the mutation entry on the strength of the  contravention of the provisions of other enactments  now. 13) Civil appeal No. 5536 of 2001 preferred by the  Municipal Corporation was dismissed as withdrawn.  Thus the issue of ULC Act and ALC Act raised in SCA  941 of 1980 was finally concluded by the said  judgment. 14) in the judgment in Bhavnagar University v.  Palitana Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), this Court decided  the dispute between the Bhavnagar University and the  appellant with reference to Gujarat Town Planning and  Urban Development Act, 1976. The appeal filed by the  Bhavnagar University was finally dismissed by this  Court. 15) Review petition No. 33 of 2003 was also dismissed  by this Court."

It is thus clear and apparent that despite the clear  observations of this Court in paragraphs above of the  present judgment that no issue raised in prior litigations  can be raised again and no attempt to challenge the right  and title in respect of the land in question could be made  against the petitioners, namely, the respondents have  once again sought to raise the same issues with a view to  flout the directions of this Court and deprive the  petitioners of the legitimate rights accruing to them from  the judgment of this Court.  The aforesaid attitude  persists notwithstanding that the judgment of this Court  has been passed in contempt proceedings and this Court  has expressly observed that any further lapse shall be  viewed extremely seriously.  We have already elaborately dealt with the history of  the present litigation between the parties which shows  that despite the petitioners having succeeded before this  Court in 4 different hotly contested litigations vide  judgments dated 14.11.2002, 03.12.2002, 05.12.2002  and 06.02.2003, the respondents have in one way or the  other not complied with the judgment or not given the  petitioners the development and building permissions  required to construct on the lands in question.   In our opinion, the respondents have with impunity  flouted our judgments dated 15.10.2004.  Mr. L.N. Rao  invited our attention to the reply filed by respondents in  order to justify their action in the contempt petition  raising new pleas and new contentions in regard to  survey No. 472 and 47/1.  This apart they also filed IA  Nos. 17 and 18 for certain directions after the notice was  issued by this Court in the contempt petition regarding  non-compliance and directions.  The learned senior

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

counsel reiterated the submissions made in the two IAs.   The respondents sought to file the above 2 IAs under the  guise of filing the review petition.  During the pendency of  the contempt petition and the IAs, a letter was written by  the Revenue Department to the Collector, Bhavnagar to  take steps as the Government has taken a decision to  accept the judgment of this Court dated 15.10.2004 for  the land admeasuring 17 acres 4 guntas and 0.32 guntas  and 1 acre 14 guntas upon which sundervas bungalow is  located.  The Collector was directed to comply with the  said direction.  However, in order to nullify the aforesaid  acceptance of the judgment in respect of the land  mentioned above, permission for non-agricultural use  has been given for the recreation use and not for the  residential use thus depriving the petitioner of the right  to construct residential houses.  The action of the  respondents and the Collector in issuing permission for  non-agricultural use for the recreation use is with an  oblique motive to deprive the petitioner of the right to  construct residential houses as already ordered in our  judgment dated 15.10.2004.  We, therefore, direct the  Revenue Department and the Collector, Bhavnagar to  forthwith issue permission to the petitioner for residential  use with a right to construct residential houses for the  above survey Nos. as mentioned in the letter dated  10.01.2007 of the Revenue Department to the Collector,  Bhavnagar.  In an answer to a query put by this Court to  Mr. Mukul Rohatgi as to whether survey No. 471/2 was a  water body, the learned senior counsel while disputing  the statement of learned senior counsel for the State  made a categorical statement that the said survey No.  471/2 is not a water body.  The statement made by the  learned senior counsel is placed on record.  If it is not a  water body, there cannot be any impediment on the part  of the respondents’ authorities in granting non- agricultural permission and other necessary building and  development permission in respect of RS No. 471/2  admeasuring 80 acres and 472 admeasuring about 50  acres of village Vadva Dist. Bhavnagar.  If 471/2 is the  Water Body the respondents would be at liberty to  decline Non Agriculture permission.   We also direct the respondents to collect non- agricultural permission charges and conversion charges  for the lands bearing survey Nos. 470/1, 471/2, 471/3  and 472 situated at village wadera Bhavnagar as  prevalent in the year 1981.  In our opinion, all the respondents had deliberately  and with mala fide motive committed contempt of our  order dated 15.10.2004.  We have already explained their  conduct and refusal to comply with our earlier orders.   When they were advised to comply with the order by this  Court during the pendency of the contempt proceedings,  the act of the respondent in not complying is not only  willful but also deliberate and contumacious.  The  respondents have not even tendered unqualified apology  before this Court but filed an application in IA No. 17 and  18 of 2005.  We, therefore, hold them guilty of willful and  deliberate act of contempt of our order dated 15.10.2004.     However, taking a lenient view and taking into  consideration of the future prospects of the officers, we  are not imposing any punishment for their willful and  contumacious violation of the order of this Court.  They  are severely warned that they shall not involve  themselves or violate the order of the highest Court of the

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

land and will not resort to the unacceptable new pleas by  way of defence for the first time in the contempt  proceedings.  They shall not hereafter also take the plea  of inventing an innovative defence that they did not  realise the implications of the order passed by this Court  when no such argument was ever advanced at the time of  hearing before this Court and on earlier occasions.   Courts have held in a catena of decisions that where  in violation of an order of this Court, something has been  done in disobedience, it will be the duty of this Court as a  policy to set the wrong right and not to allow the  perpetuation of the wrong doing.  In our opinion, the  inherent power will not only be available under Section  151 CPC as available to us in such a case but it is bound  to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice  and public interest.  All the respondents are senior and  experienced officers and must be presumed to know that  under the constitutional scheme of this country orders of  this Court have to be punctually obeyed and should not  be trifled with.  We have already found hereinabove that  they have acted deliberately to subvert the orders of this  Court.  We, therefore, hold them guilty of contempt of  Court and do hereby censure severely their conduct.  Though a copy of this order could be sent which shall  form part of the annual confidential record of service of  each of the said officers, we refrain from doing so by  taking a lenient view of the matter considering the future  prospects of the officers.  As already stated, the officers  shall not indulge in any adventurous act and strictly  obey the orders passed by the Courts of law.  We by this  order grant four weeks time to the respondents to comply  with all our directions given in the judgment dated  15.10.2004.  The petitioner is at liberty to move this  Court if the directions are not complied with in its letter  and spirit.   The contempt petition stands allowed and the IAs  stand dismissed.