http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil)  222 of 2006

PETITIONER: Y.N. Gangadhara Setty & Ors

RESPONDENT: Jaya Prakash Reddy, MD, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers  Federation

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/11/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT: JUDGEMNT

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.222 OF 2006 IN  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 24199 OF 2005

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1.      This case has a chequered history.  It is alleged that  despite orders of this Court in Civil Misc. Petition  No.5513 of 1972 in Civil Appeal No.514 of 1971 dated  30th August, 1972, (about 35 years ago) there has been a  willful disobedience and defiance of the order of this  Court. It is further alleged that there is also non- compliance of order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by  this Court in SLP (C) No.24199 of 2005.            2.      Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this  contempt application are recapitulated as under:-

       The applicants M/s YS Setty & Sons were the  owners of land admeasuring 20 acres and 3 guntas  which was acquired by the State of Karnataka on  19.1.1961 under the Land Acquisition Act.  The disputed  land bearing Survey No.76/2 measuring 2 acres and 5  guntas being part of the total land.

3.      The applicants filed several representations in the  year 1962-63 before the Government of Karnataka for  recovery of only 2 acres 5 guntas in survey no.76/2 in  favour of YS Setty & Sons out of the total land acquired  by the contemnor.  On 15.5.1962, the applicants M/s  Y.S. Setty & Sons received compensation of land.  An  appeal was filed before the High Court seeking  enhancement of compensation.  The High Court allowed  the appeal in part.  The Special Land Acquisition Officer  challenged the order of the High Court before this Court  by way of a special leave petition.

4.      On 15.9.1967 vide Government Order No. RD 74  LGB 67, sanction was accorded to reconvey the disputed  land in favour of the applicants YS Setty & Sons by the  State Government subject to fulfilling of certain  conditions.

5.      On 14.10.1969, the Land Acquisition Officer wrote  to the State Government informing that the disputed land  has been reconveyed in the name of YS Setty & Sons and  the final order was awaited from the State Government.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

6.      The Special Land Acquisition Officer entered into a  compromise in Civil Appeal No.514 of 1971 with M/s YS  Setty & Sons and agreed to reconvey 2 acres 5 guntas of  land in their favour.  Pursuant to the compromise  reached between the parties, this Court decreed the  appeal in terms of compromise between the parties.  The  relevant portion of the order dated 30th August, 1972  reads as under:- \023The Application for recording compromise  above-mentioned being called on for hearing  before this Court on the 30th day of August,  1972.  Upon perusing the said application and  the terms of Compromise and upon hearing  Mr. R.B. Datar, counsel for the petitioner  residing appellant herein and Mr. K.N. Bhatt,  counsel for the respondent, the Court took on  record the said terms of compromise and by  and with the consent of the parties herein, the  court decreed the appeal in respect of 2 acres  and 5 guntas of land out of 15 acres and 18  guntas of the land in Survey no.76/2 Adugodi  Village in terms of the said terms of  compromise annexed thereto as Schedule \021A\022.\024

7.      It is alleged that despite the orders passed by this  Court in a compromise petition, the possession of the  land was not handed over to the applicants YS Setty &  Sons or their predecessors-in-title.

8.      The firm YS Setty & Sons was dissolved on  31.12.1973.  The legal heirs and successors-in-interest of  YS Setty & Sons made various representations before the  State Government to reconvey the disputed land in their  favour but the same were of no avail as the Government  has not handed over the possession till date.  Instead of  giving the possession, the contemnor herein made  construction over the disputed land.

9.      The erstwhile partners and successors-in-interest of  the applicants YS Setty & Sons filed a writ petition  bearing Writ Petition No.4276 of 1995 before the High  Court seeking directions to the contemnor herein to  comply with the order dated 30.8.1972 passed by this  court and to direct the State Government to comply with  the government order dated 15.9.1967.

10.     The applicants herein filed suit OS No.6969/1999  before the City Civil Court at Bangalore for reconveyance  of the scheduled/disputed property.  The court granted  interim injunction in favour of plaintiff on 15.2.2000.

11.     The contemnor herein challenged the said order  before the High Court in MFA No.1189/2000.  The High  Court vide order dated 11.4.2000 vacated the interim  injunction and directed the trial court to dispose of the  suit untrammeled with the observations made in the  judgment.            12.     The applicants herein filed a special leave petition  against the order dated 11.4.2000 and filed an interim  application in Civil Appeal No.514 of 1971 seeking  reconveyance and delivery of the disputed land.  This  court vide common order dated 03.12.2001 dismissed the  special leave petition and directed the trial court to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

expedite the hearing of the suit, if possible within six  months.  This Court further disposed of the interlocutory  application filed and recorded the statement made by the  State Government that \023\005.the government has executed  the conveyance deed.\024          13.     The State Government executed reconveyance deed  dated 31.5.2001 in favour of the applicants herein by the  Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for the disputed land.  In spite of the execution of the reconveyance deed, the  State Government did not hand over possession of the  land to the applicants herein.  This attitude of the State  Government compelled the applicants to file a writ  petition before the High Court bearing no.18166 of 2002.

14.     The learned Single Judge vide Order dated  31.3.2004 allowed the writ petition and directed as  under:- \023Direction is issued to the KMF to restore  possession of the schedule land measuring 2  acres 5 guntas in Survey No.76/2 of Audigodo  Village, Bangalore, South Taluk, bounded on  the east by Sy.No.76/1, West by 76/2, north  by 76/3 and south by Bangalore Hosur Road,  within three months from today.\024          15.     The learned Single Judge had recorded that the  contemnor herein, i.e., Karnataka Milk Federation have,  \023\005\005..no right whatsoever in respect of the scheduled  property, has no right to resist delivery of possession  pursuant to the deed of sale executed by the State  Government in favour of the petitioners.\024  The Court  further held that  \023The KMF being an instrumentality of the State  shall not come in the way of the State  Government in honouring its commitment  made in the compromise petition filed before  the Supreme Court, much before the KDDC  came into existence.\024

16.     The Court also recorded that, \023The KMF proceeded  to put up construction contrary to the directions issued  by the State Government to deliver possession of the  scheduled land to the petitioners.  Further, the KMF  being aware of all the above narrated facts proceeded to  put up construction.  This Court in the MFA (1189/2000)  referred to above has observed that the KMF cannot  plead any equity in its favour in the event it has been  proceeded to put up construction.  The suit filed by the  petitioners is also disposed of since the State  Government itself has reconveyed the property under the  registered deed dated 31.5.2001.  This Court also  disposed of the SLP (C)  No.9309/2001) and the  application filed in SLP No.514/71 taking into  consideration the subsequent development of the  Government reconveying the property in favour of the  petitioners (applicants herein)..\005.\024 Therefore, in  considered view of the Court the petitioners were entitled  for possession of the scheduled land from the KMF.\024          17.     The contemnor aggrieved by the order dated  31.3.2004 filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of  the High Court.  The Division Bench vide order dated  13.7.2005 dismissed the appeal and held as under:- \023Even though several contentions were raised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

before the learned Single Judge, the learned  Single Judge considering the fact that a  compromise was entered into between the  parties before this Court, the appellant cannot  go back from the same.  It was contended  before the learned Single Judge that the State  Government had no authority to enter into a  compromise because the land when once  acquired and handed over to Bangalore Dairy,  it cannot be de-notified and given back to the  owners.  That contention has been rightly  rejected by the learned Single Judge.  The  Government of then State of Mysore acquired  the land for the Bangalore Dairy which was a  wing of the State Government at that time.   The appellant Corporation had not come into  existence at that time.  The acquisition was  therefore for itself.  Therefore, the Government  had rightly agreed for the compromise before  this Court.  Hence, there was nothing wrong in  the Government agreeing to de-notify the land  which was acquired earlier.  The present  appellant which came into existence later on in  place of the earlier Bangalore Dairy cannot  question what had been done by the State  Government in their own interest before this  Court.  The Division Bench therefore did not  see any error committed by the learned Single  Judge in rejecting the contention of the  appellant.\024

18.     The contemnor herein filed a special leave petition  against the order dated 13.7.2005 passed by the learned  Division Bench.  The special leave petition was dismissed  by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2005.  This Court  held as under : \023We do not find any ground to interfere with  the order.  The SLP is dismissed accordingly.\024

19.     Thereafter, the applicants through their advocates  sent a legal notice dated 17.1.2006 and called upon the  contemnor herein to comply with the orders dated  30.8.1972 and 5.12.2005 passed by this Court.  The  contemnor addressed a letter dated 25.1.2006 to the  applicants herein and has merely made an offer to give  possession of the land which is neither the scheduled  land nor adjoining to the scheduled land.

20.     The applicants thereafter had sent another letter  dated 6.2.2006 through their advocate and again called  upon the contemnor to comply with the order dated  30.8.1972 and 5.12.2005 passed by this Court and to  deliver possession of 2 acres and 5 guntas of land as per  the compromise reached between the parties before this  Court.  The contemnor-federation herein through its  advocate addressed another letter dated 14.2.2006 to the  advocate of the applicants herein and reiterated the offer  made in the letter dated 25.1.2006.

21.     In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the  contemnor had made all attempts to avoid compliance of  the orders of this Court and made every efforts to  circumvent and over-reach the orders passed by this  court.

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

22.     It may be pertinent to mention that the Map which  has been annexed with this petition shows that initially  the contemnor had agreed to hand-over 2 acres 5 guntas  of land from the portion marked as \023A\024.   The contemnor- federation herein showed its inability to give that portion,  therefore, the applicants herein YS Setty & Sons had  agreed to take 2 acres 5 guntas of land, as per Map  shown in Schedule \021B\024 which the contemnor agreed to  give to the applicants.            23.     We have heard learned counsel for the parties at  length and we find considerable merit in this application.   On consideration of the totality of the facts and  circumstances, we direct the respondent-federation to  hand-over possession of 2 acres 5 guntas, as per  annexed Map shown as Scheduled \023B\024 without any loss  of time.

24.     We further direct that the cost of the reconstruction  of the existing buildings shall be valued by an  independent Government approved valuer within two  weeks from today.  The re-construction cost so fixed shall  be deposited within a week from the report of the valuer. 25.     The respondent-federation will be entitled to  demolish the buildings within 8 weeks from the date of  deposit and shall hand over vacant possession of the area  of 2 acres 5 guntas as per Schedule \021B\024.  The original re- conveyance deed shall be rectified within four weeks of  handing over vacant, peaceful and physical possession by  the respondent-federation.   

26.     In case there is non-compliance of the orders of this  Court, the court will take very serious view of the matter  and pass appropriate orders.       27.     The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.