Allahabad High Court
Harpal Singh And 2 Others vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vice Chairman ... on 20 December, 2022
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 308 of 2017 Applicant :- Harpal Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vice Chairman M.D.A. Moradabad Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Joshi,Bal Krishna Pandey,Deep Chandra Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Arun K. Singh Deshwal,Pradeep Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Reply on behalf of applicants, filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, learned counsel for the opposite party.
3. This contempt application under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act has been filed for punishing the opposite party for not complying the order dated 12.05.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21084 of 2004, which was affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 28.03.2016 passed in Special Leave Petition No. 1334 of 2011.
4. Facts, in brief, are that applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the land holders of Gata No. 225-A measuring 0.490 Hectare and Gata No. 225-B measuring 0.134 Hectare situated at Village Sonakpur, Tehsil & District Moradabad. The said land was taken over by the Moradabad Development Authority, which had raised certain constructions and compensation in lieu of the land was to be paid. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 had approached this Court through Writ-C No. 21084 of 2004 seeking compensation of the land. The writ Court on 12.05.2010 while disposing off the writ petition directed Moradabad Development Authority to either give compensation at the rate of market value as was prevalent on the date of order or to provide land in lieu there of. The matter travelled up to the Apex Court through Special Leave Petition No. 1334 of 2011 having been filed by Moradabad Development Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2016.
5. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 on 03.06.2016 executed the sale-deed of the land in dispute in favour of applicant no. 3 for a consideration of Rs. 45 Lakh. The applicant no. 3, who is a builder, moved application before Moradabad Development Authority for payment of compensation on the basis of the sale-deed dated 03.06.2016. The said application was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2017 on the ground that only the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation. The applicants, thus, preferred a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 308 of 2017 wherein this Court on 22.02.2017 issued contempt notice to applicant nos. 1 and 2 and passed the following order;
"Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh has filed counter affidavit on behalf of Vice Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority, which is taken on record.
It is sought to be urged that the disputed plot was transferred on 3 June 2016 by the first and second applicant, who are legal heirs of Ram Charan @ Ram Chander, to the first respondent which is a company. Thereafter, the present contempt petition has been filed for violation of the order dated 12 May 2010. The order of the writ Court had not conferred any title upon the applicants, the development authority was required to compensate the applicants or provide an alternative plot of the same value of the plot belonging to the applicants.
In the opinion of the Court, prima facie, it appears that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of contempt for violating the order dated 12 May 2010 passed by the writ Court.
Issue notice to applicant nos. 1 and 2 as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
List on 29 March 2017.
Name of Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh shall be shown as counsel appearing for the Moradabad Development Authority. "
6. No reply was filed to the notice issued by this Court on 22.02.2017 by the applicant nos. 1 and 2. On 10.08.2022 this Court granted an opportunity to the legal heirs of applicant nos. 1 and 2 to move requisite application for payment of compensation as granted by the writ Court on 12.05.2010 and following order was passed;
"A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Arun Kumar Deshwal, learned counsel appearing for Moradabad Development Authority that order of writ Court dated 12.05.2010 passed in Writ-C No. 21084 of 2004 was to the extent that the Moradabad Development Authority was either to give compensation at the rate of market value or provide the land in lieu thereof to the petitioner, Ram Charan @ Ram Chandra. Pursuant to order of writ Court, the authority had approached the Apex Court wherein the order of writ Court was affirmed in the year 2016. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Late Ram Charan @ Ram Chandra, the petitioner of Writ-C No. 21084 of 2004 had transferred the land to applicant no. 3. This Court on 22.02.2017 on the contempt application being filed by legal heirs of Ram Charan and the builder, applicant no. 3 had issued contempt notice against applicant nos. 1 and 2 and following order was passed:-
"Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh has filed counter affidavit on behalf of Vice Chairman of the Moradabad Development Authority, which is taken on record.
It is sought to be urged that the disputed plot was transferred on 3 June 2016 by the first and second applicant, who are legal heirs of Ram Charan @ Ram Chander, to the first respondent which is a company. Thereafter, the present contempt petition has been filed for violation of the order dated 12 May 2010. The order of the writ Court had not conferred any title upon the applicants, the development authority was required to compensate the applicants or provide an alternative plot of the same value of the plot belonging to the applicants.
In the opinion of the Court, prima facie, it appears that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of contempt for violating the order dated 12 May 2010 passed by the writ Court.
Issue notice to applicant nos. 1 and 2 as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
List on 29 March 2017.
Name of Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh shall be shown as counsel appearing for the Moradabad Development Authority."
Today, when the case was taken up, Sri Deshwal, learned counsel appearing for opposite party submitted that compensation was only payable to Ram Charan @ Ram Chandra and in case of his death, his legal heirs, applicant nos. 1 and 2 and not to subsequent transferee i.e. the builder, applicant no. 3.
Sri Bal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant nos. 1 and 2 shall move the requisite application for payment of compensation as granted by writ Court on 12.05.2010 within a period of two weeks from today.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs that in case an application is made by applicant nos. 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks from today, the opposite party shall comply the order of writ Court dated 12.05.2010 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court within a period of one month.
List this matter in the last week of September, 2022.
On that date, counsel appearing for opposite party shall file affidavit of compliance."
7. On 19.09.2022 the legal heirs of applicant nos. 1 and 2 moved an application before Moradabad Development Authority for getting the compensation, alongwith this application an agreement dated 30.08.2022 executed between the applicants was also enclosed. On the application moved by the applicants, the District Magistrate, Moradabad, who was heading the committee, determined the amount of compensation and a letter was issued on 11.11.2022 to the applicants alongwith draft copy of sale-deed which was required to be executed by the applicants in favour of Moradabad Development Authority. The total compensation determined by the District Magistrate was Rs. 34, 74,90,18.88/-. The applicants did not execute the sale-deed and on 14.11.2022 they had filed an application seeking higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per square meter.
8. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that the applicants are entitled to the compensation at present market rate and not at the market rate of the year 2010. He further contends that the payment was not made when the order was passed in the year 2010 and is being paid after a period of 12 years.
9. On the contrary, Sri Deshwal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, submitted that in the year 2016 the applicant nos. 1 and 2, who were the owners of the land, instead of moving application for payment of compensation, had transferred the land in favour of private builder i.e. applicant no. 3. He further contended that quantification of the land has been done by the committee headed by the District Magistrate and compensation amount has been determined as Rs. 34, 74,90,18.88/- and Moradabad Development Authority is ready to pay the compensation to the applicants in case the applicants execute the sale-deed in favour of the authority. He further contended that on the contempt application filed by the applicants in the year 2017 itself the Court had issued contempt notice to the applicants.
10. I have heard respective counsel and perused the material on record.
11. From perusal of the order passed by the writ Court on 12.05.2010 it is clear that the compensation was to be paid to the applicants at the rate of market value prevalent as on date of order. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 themselves instead of getting the compensation from the authority had transferred the land in favour of a private builder in the year 2016. After the order dated 10.08.2022 the applicants had moved requisite application before the development authority for payment of compensation which has been determined by the District Magistrate and the amount has been quantified for which the development authority is ready to pay the same subject to execution of sale-deed by the applicants.
12. The argument raised by the applicants' counsel that they are entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per square meter, cannot be accepted as the writ Court had only directed for compensation at the rate of market value of the land on the date of passing of the order which is 12.05.2010. Under the contempt jurisdiction, this Court cannot go behind the order passed by the writ Court and adjudicate the same on merits especially in regard to the determination and quantification of the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants.
13. Recently the Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held that no roving and fishing inquiry can be done by contempt Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The relevant para 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereasunder;
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
14. As the development authority has come up with a case that they are ready to pay the amount determined by the District Magistrate subject to the execution of the sale-deed, this Court finds that no case for contempt is made out and the contempt application is misconceived and same is hereby dismissed.
15. Contempt notice stands discharged.
16. However, leaving it open to the applicant nos. 1 and 2 to get the compensation amount from the development authority, as qunatified by the District Magistrate, after getting the sale-deed executed in favour of development authority. It is further provided that the applicants may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance against the order of determination of compensation amount done by the committee headed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, if so advised.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022 Shekhar