- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This special appeal has been filed under the provisions of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, against the order dated 6. 8. 2007, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 3875 of 2005 rejecting the application for recall if its earlier orders dated 2. 3. 2007 and 16. 3. 2007.
(2.) THIS case has a chequered history, as two rounds of litigation have already been completed. The matter has gone upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court twice and in spite of the fact that several orders have been passed by various Courts, the litigation is not coming to an end. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the land in dispute, i. e. . Bungalow 26/14, Hastings Road (Nyaya Marg), Allahabad, measuring an area of 22528 sq. meters stood notified under the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'act 1894') on 14. 2. 1986 and in respect of the same, declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was made on 15. 2. 1986. As the land was urgently needed, provisions contained under Section 17 of the Act, 1894 were invoked. Possession of the entire land was taken under Section 16 of the Act, 1894 on 8. 5. 1986 and it vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In respect of the said property, an Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter called the 'collector') on 28. 10. 1987 giving separate amount of compensation in respect of land, building, trees and other fixtures etc. , assessing the value of the land @ Rs. 500 per sq. meter. Against the said Award dated 28. 10. 1987, L. A. Reference No. 122 of 1988 was filed, which was decided by the District Judge, Allahabad on 20. 7. 1989 assessing the market value of the land @ Rs. 500 per sq. meter with apportionment to 75% in favour of claimants and 25% in favour of the State, for the reason that the land was the leasehold property and the lease was to expire only after seven years of the date of acquisition. Being aggrieved, the claimants approached this Court by filing First Appeal No. 147 of 1990, which was decided on 22. 10. 1992 assessing the market rate of the land @ Rs. 423 per sq. meter and further holding that the State was entitled for 50% of the compensation. However, this Court observed that the said land also ought to have been assessed under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the 'act 1976') and directed the authority under the Act, 1976 to determine the surplus land, if any, at the hands of the persons interested and to make payment of compensation for that area under the provisions of the Act 1976. The claimants approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 10786 of 1996, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 1st August, 1996. In the meanwhile, the competent authority under the Act, 1976 vide its order dated 18. 6. 1993 had decided that claimants were having 13657. 35 sq. meters as surplus land. Being aggrieved, they preferred a ceiling appeal before the District Judge, Allahabad, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 2. 5. 1995, wherein it was held that claimants were having on 9157 sq. meters as surplus land. Being aggrieved, the claimants preferred three writ petitions, i. e. . Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26415 of 1995 26416 of 1995 and 26449 of 1995. All the said writ petitions came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 9th August, 2005 wherein the issue arose as to whether the proceedings under the Act, 1976 had lapsed in view of the fact that the Act, 1976 stood repealed by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter called the 'act 19991 ). The Court did not address itself to the issue as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, where possession had been taken on 8. 5. 1986 and the surplus area, if any, was to be determined notionally only for the purpose of determination of compensation payable for the area under orders of High Court as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the proceedings would lapse, rather recorded the concession made by the standing counsel appearing for the State and held that the proceedings under the Act, 1976 stood abated. The Court allowed the claimants to apply before the Collector under the Act, 1894 and the authority was directed to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of its communication. The impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Act, 1976 were quashed. The State authorities challenged the said judgment and order dated 9. 8. 2005, however the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. . . . . . of 2007 (CC No. 572 of 2007) vide order dated 22. 1. 2007 only on the ground of delay and laches. The claimants approached the Collector to determine the compensation under the Act, 1894 submitting their own calculation chart on 8. 9. 2005. The Collector, being confronted with several orders passed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier, decided the said application, vide order dated 1. 12. 2005, observing that as the matter stood finalised by the order passed earlier by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he could not reopen the issues nor he could examine the applicability of the provisions of the Act, 1976. The claimants instead of challenging the order of District Collector by means of a writ petition, filed Contempt Application No. 3857 of 2005, Ratan Kumar Tandon v. Sri J. Ram and others.
(3.) WHILE entertaining the contempt application, notices were issued vide order dated 14. 12. 2005 giving opportunity to the Collector to ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court on 9th August, 2005. When the matter was listed on 26th September, 2006, this Court held that the order dated 1. 12. 2005 was not satisfactory and once the order of the Authorities under the Act, 1976 had been quashed by this Court observing that the said proceedings stood abated, the applicants/respondents were entitled for compensation for the entire land under the Act, 1894, and the respondent No. 1 did not comply with the order for this Court in its letter and spirit. Thus, he was given one more opportunity to ensure its compliance. The matter had been listed several times. It is evident from the record that various statements had been made before the contempt court that the compensation would be paid under the provisions of the Act, 1894 and for that some time would be given to the State authorities. As the payment was not made, the officers had been directed to remain present in the Court several times but payment has not yet been made, though the contempt court issued several directions fixing the time limit for making the payment and lastly issued direction for making the payment with compound interest @ 10% per annum. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed Special Appeal No. 382 of 2007 challenging the orders passed by the contempt court from time to time. However, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants to file an application for recall of the orders dated 2. 3. 2007 and 16. 3. 2007. (Vide order dated 2. 3. 2007, a direction was issued to make payment with 10 per cent compound interest per annum and in case of non-payment, the District Collector, Principal Secretary (Culture) and the Principal Secretary (Revenue) were directed to remain present, vide order dated 16. 3. 2007 direction was issued to make the entire payment to the applicants before the next date of listing and in case of non-payment, the District Collector, Principal Secretary (Culture) and the Principal Secretary (Revenue) were directed to remain present before the Court. Thereafter, an application to recall the aforesaid two orders was filed, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 6th August, 2007. Hence, this special appeal. Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel with Shri Anoop Trivedi, appearing for the appellants has submitted that under the orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, proceedings under the Act, 1976 were only for the purposes of determining the surplus area for payment of compensation specifically as possession of the land had already been taken by the State Government on 8. 5. 1986 and the land had vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question of abatement of such proceedings under the Act, 1976 would not arise. Any judgment or order of the Court based on consent of the counsel is not enforceable in case the consent of the standing counsel was in contravention of law or it was not in conformity with the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Act, 1999 provides that the proceedings under the Act, 1976 would abate provided the tenure holder was still in actual and physical possession. In the instant case, as the possession had been taken 20 ears ago, the proceedings under the Act, 1976 would not lapse and these proceedings were required only to determine as what could have been the area of the surplus land. Even if the proceedings had lapsed, the Collector passed the order dated 1. 12. 2005 in compliance of the order of this Court dated 9th August. 2005, if the applicants were so aggrieved, they could have challenged the said order by filing a writ petition but contempt proceedings were not maintainable. It has further been urged by Shri Shashi Nandan that contempt proceedings cannot be used as execution proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the amount of compensation. More so, when there was no specific direction by this Court in its order dated 9th August, 2005, for making payment of compensation, the direction was only to consiaer the application for compensation. In any event, the contempt court could not calculate the amount of compensation and issue a direction to make payment with 10 per cent compound interest annually. Thus, the order impugned passed by the contempt court Is liable to be set aside.;