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

PETITIONER: R.N.  DEY AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHAGYABATI PRAMANIK & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/04/2000

BENCH: M.B.Shah, K.T.Thomas

JUDGMENT:

Shah, J.

     Delay  condoned.  These appeals are filed against  the judgment and order dated 4th August, 1998 passed by the High Court  of  Calcutta in C.R.  No.1186 of 1993 and C.P.A.   N. No.1822  of  1997 in F.A.  No.232 of 1983.  By the  impugned order,  the  Court accepted unqualified apology tendered  by the  appellants  in compliance with the orders of the  Court for   not  paying  the  balance   award  money  due  to  the respondents.   The Court further directed the appellants  to deposit with the Registrar (Appellate Side) the compensation money  determined  in  terms of order of  the  learned  Land Acquisition  Judge  in respect of the lands acquired by  the State  as mentioned in the order and decree within two weeks from  the date of the order without prejudice to the  rights and   contentions  of  the   parties  in  such  proceedings. Further, the Court did not pass any order on the application filed  by the Collector for vacating the Rule issued in  the contempt  proceeding holding that Collector cannot go behind the  Award  passed  by  him  as  provided  under  the   Land Acquisition Act.

     It is the contention of the appellant that the land in question  has  vested  in  the State  Government  under  the Estates  Acquisition  Act, 1953 and the intermediaries  were paid  the compensation under the said enactment.  It is also contended  that respondents-claimants have obtained a decree by  fraud in their favour after the said Act, therefore,  it is  nullity  as  the land vested in  the  State  Government. Further,  by mistake, the Collector made an order under  the Land  Acquisition Act for the acquisition of 39.02 acres  of land @ Rs.27,126/- per acre.  That compensation was enhanced to @ Rs.4,23,500/- per acre.  The State of West Bengal filed appeal  (First  Appeal  No.232  of 1988)  against  the  said Judgment and Decree.  In the said appeal, an application for stay  was  also filed on which the High Court made an  order directing  that payment @ Rs.600/- per cottah be made as  an interim  relief.  The claimants filed an application  before the Appellate Court for a direction that compensation amount be  paid.   However, the Appellate Court directed an ad  hoc payment  of Rs.1,00,000/-.  That amount was paid.   Further, on  15th  May 1992, the High Court passed an  interim  order

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

which reads as under:

     Accordingly,  the appellant should pay at this  stage to  the respondent/claimant a sum equivalent to 3/4th of the rate  admitted by the appellant, i.e.  3/4th of Rs.800/- per cottah  including  the benefits awarded by the learned  L.A. Judge within two months from today.

     Thereafter,  it  came to light that claimants have  no right,  title  or  interest in the land and,  therefore,  no compensation  was payable to them.  In these  circumstances, the  State of West Bengal moved an application for  vacation of  the  order for the payment.  Thereafter,  the  claimants filed  an application stating that the officers of the State of West Bengal were in contempt for not having complied with the order of the High Court.

     It  is also pointed out that against the order of  the High  Court directing that 2/3rd of the compensation be paid to  the claimants, the State approached this Court by filing a  petition but the same was withdrawn with liberty to  move the High Court for suitable orders.  Subsequently, claimants filed an application before this Court seeking clarification of  order  dated  09.9.1992.  This Court  vide  order  dated 23.8.1993  clarified  its order by stating that order  dated 09.9.1992 does not, in any way, come in the way of claimants getting  the admitted compensation.  Subsequently, the  High Court  passed an order that application for vacating interim order  would  be heard on the date fixed for hearing of  the contempt rule.

     In  the background of these facts, it is submitted  by the  learned  counsel for the appellants that  First  Appeal No.232 of 1988 is pending before the Court and that there is no  specific order staying the judgment and award passed  by the  Land  Acquisition Judge.  Therefore, instead of  filing contempt application, the claimants could, at the most, have proceeded  with the execution of the decree or award.  It is further  submitted  that in view of the facts  stated  above contempt  application was wholly untenable and the  issuance of  Rule in said matter was unjustifiable.  Hence, the  High Court  committed grave error in proceeding on the basis that the officers of the State Government are in contempt.  It is also  pointed  out that pursuant to the various orders,  the State  has  paid in all appeals approximately  Rs.50/-  lacs even  though  it is the contention of the  State  Government that  nothing  was payable to the claimants as the land  has vested  in  the State Government.  As against this,  it  has been  contended  by the learned counsel for the  respondents that  after tendering unqualified apology it was not open to the  appellant to file these appeals.  At present, since the matter  is  kept pending before the High Court,  this  Court should not interfere at this interlocutory stage.

     We  may reiterate that weapon of contempt is not to be used  in abundance or misused.  Normally, it cannot be  used for  execution  of the decree or implementation of an  order for  which  alternative  remedy  in  law  is  provided  for. Discretion  given  to  the  Court is  to  be  exercised  for maintenance of Courts dignity and majesty of law.  Further, an  aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise   such  jurisdiction  as   contempt  is  between  a contemnor  and  the Court.  It is true that in  the  present case,  the  High Court has kept the matter pending  and  has ordered that it should be heard along with the First Appeal.

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

But,  at  the same time, it is to be noticed that under  the coercion  of  contempt  proceeding,   appellants  cannot  be directed  to  pay  the compensation amount  which  they  are disputing by asserting that claimants were not the owners of the  property  in question and that decree was  obtained  by suppressing  the material fact and by fraud.  Even presuming that  claimants  are  entitled  to  recover  the  amount  of compensation  as awarded by the trial court as no stay order is  granted by the High Court, at the most they are entitled to  recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is nullity.  In such a  situation,  as  there  was   no  willful  or   deliberate disobedience  of  the  order,  the  initiation  of  contempt proceedings was wholly unjustified.

     Further, the decree-holder, who does not take steps to execute   the  decree  in   accordance  with  the  procedure prescribed  by  law,  should  not be  encouraged  to  invoke contempt  jurisdiction of the court for non-satisfaction  of the  money decree.  In land acquisition cases when a  decree is  passed the State is in the position of a judgment debtor and hence the court should not normally lend help to a party who refuses to take legally provided steps for executing the decree.   At  any rate, the court should be slow to haul  up officers of the Government for contempt for non-satisfaction of such money decree.

     The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after  issuance of notice for contempt proceedings initiated by  the respondents, the Court has only issued Rule and  the matter is not finally decided, therefore, the appeal against such  order  is  not maintainable.  It is submitted  by  the learned  counsel for the appellants that respondents want to take  undue  advantage of pending contempt  proceedings  and coerce  the  officers of the State in making payment on  the basis  of  the  award even though they are not  entitled  to recover  the same as the property had already vested in  the State  and  that the appellants were required to pay in  all approximately Rs.  50 lakhs to the claimants.

     In  our  view the aforesaid contention of the  learned counsel  for the respondents requires to be rejected on  the ground  that after receipt of the notice, concerned officers tendered unconditional apology and after accepting the same, the High Court rejected the prayer for discharge of the Rule issued  for contempt action.  When the Court either suo moto or  on  a motion or a reference, decides to take action  and initiate  proceedings for contempt, it assumes  jurisdiction to  punish  for contempt.  The exercise of  jurisdiction  to punish  for  contempt  commences with the  initiation  of  a proceeding  for  contempt  and if the order  is  passed  not discharging  the  Rule  issued in contempt  proceedings,  it would   be  an  order  or   decision  in  exercise  of   its jurisdiction  to  punish for contempt.  Against such  order, appeal  would  be maintainable.  For the aforesaid  purpose, reference can be made to the decision in P.D.  Goel v.  B.S. Dhillon  and  Others  [(1978) 2 SCC 370] wherein  the  Court observed  that:  - If the alleged contemnor in response  to the notice appears before the High Court and asks it to drop the  proceeding  on  the ground of its  being  barred  under Section  20  of  the Act but the High Court holds  that  the proceeding  is  not  barred, it may well be that  an  appeal would  lie to this Court under Section 19 from such an order although  the  proceeding has remained pending in  the  High Court.

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

     The  Court further observed that if the order  decides some  disputes  raised  before the Court  by  the  contemnor asking  it  to  drop the proceedings on one  ground  or  the other, the appeal against the said order is maintainable.

     In the present proceedings the question whether appeal under  Section 19 is maintainable or not is not required  to be  decided finally as, in our view, facts of this case  are grossly  inadequate  and the contempt proceedings  were  not required  to  be  initiated  at   all.   In  any  case,  the unconditional  apology tendered could have been accepted and further  proceedings  dropped  and Rule ought to  have  been discharged.

     In  the  result, the appeal is allowed,  the  impugned order  passed  by  the High Court issuing Rule  in  contempt proceedings  is  set aside.  The First Appeal filed  by  the State is pending since 1988 and it has been contended by the State  that  the  property which was  acquired  had  already vested in the State Government, therefore, the High Court is requested  to  expedite the hearing of the First Appeal  and dispose  it  of  as early as possible.   The  appeals  stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.