Bombay High Court

ASHOK RUNGTAversusHARSHA H.E.THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER

Decided: 27 August 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be exercised as there was no willful violation of the orders and the matter involves a disputed claim to be decided in the execution proceedings.

Summary

The petitioner, Ashok Rungta, filed a contempt petition alleging that the Union of India and the Special Land Acquisition Officer failed to comply with three earlier orders directing payment of compensation in Execution Application No. 811 of 2013. The orders required immediate disbursement of Rs. 17,69,510 with interest, verification of receipt, and payment by the Union of India within eight weeks. The respondent argued that the amount was later deposited in the court after the contempt petition was filed and that a review petition was pending. The court examined whether the delayed deposit and the existence of a review petition amounted to willful contempt, and considered Supreme Court precedents limiting contempt jurisdiction where alternative remedies exist. Finding that the dispute over the amount and the procedural delay did not constitute a willful violation, the court held that contempt jurisdiction was inappropriate and dismissed the petition, leaving the substantive compensation issues to be resolved in the execution proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to deposit the ordered compensation amount before the filing of the contempt petition amounts to willful contempt of court.
Whether the filing of a review petition bars the court from exercising contempt jurisdiction.
Whether a dispute over the quantum of compensation precludes the invocation of contempt jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 23(1-A)

Subjects

contempt of court
execution of decree
land acquisition compensation
Section 23(1-A)
review petition
Supreme Court precedent
willful violation

Judgment

42 Conp-12-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2026
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2013

Ashok Rungta ...Petitioner

Vs.

Harsha H.E.The Defence Estate
Officer ...Respondent

ALONGWITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1537 OF 2016
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2013
ALONGWITH
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 24409 OF 2024
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1537 OF 2016
ALONGWITH
NOTICE NO. 1278 OF 2013
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2013
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 26255 OF 2024
IN
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 24409 OF 2024

*****
Ms. Gulnar Mistry, Mr. Subit Advocate for the Decree holder/
Chakrabarty, Ms. Khushnumah Petitioner
Banerjee i/by Vidhii Partners
Senior Counsel Mr. Ram Apte, Advocate for the Union of India
Devang Parmar, Sagar Machi,
Digitally signed
by SEEMA
SEEMA KSHITIJ
YELKAR
KSHITIJ Date:
Harshad P. Nahata i/by Adv.
YELKAR 2026.08.29
16:27:19
+0530

Seema 1/8
42 Conp-12-2026.doc

Bharat Mehta

*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 27th AUGUST 2026

P. C. :-

1. Heard learned Advocate for the Contempt Petitioner and learned

Senior Advocate for the Union of India.

2. The grievance made in this Contempt petition is about non-

compliance of three orders. They are as follows:-

a) Order dated 21.07.2023.

b) Order dated 28.08.2023.

c) Order dated 06.05.2024.

3. All these orders were passed in Execution Application No. 811 of

2013 filed by the present Petitioner. Learned Advocate for the

Petitioner has invited my attention to the observations made in those

orders. They are as follows:-

a) As per Order dated 21.07.2023

After recording the submission, this Court directed Special Land

Acquisition Officer to disburse the said amount alongwith accrued

interest, in favour of the applicants forthwith, if not disbursed earlier.

Seema 2/8
42 Conp-12-2026.doc

In any case, the said amount shall be disbursed in favour of the

applicants before the next date of listing.

b) As per order dated 28.08.2023

This Court recorded submission :-

“It is submitted that even though the UoI has given a
cheque to them, they are verifying their record as to
whether it is credited to their account”.
There was issue of confirmation of receipt of these amounts from the

Special Land Acquisition Officer.

c) As per order dated 06.05.2024

In para nos. 9 and 10, it is observed that :-

“It is the responsibility of the acquiring body to make the
payment of compensation to the land owners. The Defence
Estates Officer has not been able to dispute the claim of the
SDO that in view of the enhanced compensation of Rs.
22,31,559/-, the SDO was not in a position to pay the lesser
amount of Rs. 17,69,510/- for which the cheque was received
from the Defence Estates Officer. Further, neither the Defence
Estates Officer viz. acquiring body nor SDO/SLAO have
disputed that land compensation has not been paid to the
Applicant”.
The submission is whether it is Union of India or SLAO ultimately, the

Applicant should get the amount.

Seema 3/8
42 Conp-12-2026.doc

4. As against this, learned Senior Advocate Shri Apte submitted

that earlier they have issued cheque in favour of SDO for Rs.

17,69,510/-. However, in view of non-confirmation by the State

Government, they have issued another cheque of this amount and

deposited in this Court.

5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the said

amount is withdrawn and this amount is deposited belatedly after filing

of the contempt petition.

6. Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the

decisions given by this Court on reference were challenged before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined

about not granting the components under Section 23 (1-A) of the

Land Acquisition Act. Because, it pertains to a period earlier to the

introduction of that sub-section. Even he submitted that he has some

more grounds to object to the filing of the Execution Application. He

places reliance on the observations in case of R. N. Dey and Others Vs.

Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others1. He also submitted that review

application is already filed to review for order dated 06.05.2024.

According to the learned Advocate for the Applicant mere filing of a

1 (2000) 4 SCC 400

Seema 4/8
42 Conp-12-2026.doc

review application does not prevent the Court from proceeding with

the grievance about contempt of the said order.

7. Learned Advocate for the Applicant places reliance on

observations in case of Israr Ahmad Khan Vs. Amarnath Prasad and

Ors.2 and more specifically observations in para no. 5. In that matter

the review petition was filed, but it was under objection and no

attempts were made to remove the objections. According to her, in this

case also the review application was filed after expiry of time granted as

per order dated 06.05.2024. She places reliance also on observation in

para no. 6. It is observed :-

“It was not open to the alleged contemnors to not comply
with an order of this Court on the mere filing of a Review
Petition, which, at the deliberate cost of repetition, remains
defective due to want of rectification by the concerned
Review Petitioner.
8. Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R. N. Dey and

Others (supra), there was issue about non-payment of the amount as

per the award passed as per Land Acquisition Act. In that case there

was first appeal pending and admittedly, there is no order of stay. The

Supreme Court observed :-

2 (2026) SCC Online SC 322

Seema 5/8
42 Conp-12-2026.doc

“Decree holder in that case instead of filing the contempt
application, at the most, have proceeded with the execution of
the decree or award”.
It is further observed :-

“We may reiterate that the 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 the court’s dignity and majesty of law.
Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the
court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is
between a contemner and the court.
9. Now coming to the facts of this case, it is no doubt true in the

order dated 21.07.2023, direction was given to the Special Land

Acquisition Officer to disburse the amount with interest till next date

of listing. This direction was given on the basis of the submission made

by learned Senior Advocate Shri Apte that amount of Rs. 17,69,510/-

was deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer. On this

background, it was very much necessary for the Special Land

Acquisition Officer to disburse that amount to the Petitioners.

Admittedly, they have not done it.

Seema 6/8
42 Conp-12-2026.doc

10. Whereas in the order dated 28.08.2023, it was submitted on

behalf of the respondent No. 1 that they are verifying their record as to

whether it is credited to their accounts or not.

11. Whereas as per order dated 06.05.2024, this Court has directed

the Union of India to make payment of the compensation alongwith

accrued interest within a period of eight weeks.

12. Now the case put up by the learned Senior Advocate Shri Apte is

without going into verification of payment of the amount of Rs.

17,69,510/- by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, they have

deposited the amount in the Court and it is already withdrawn.

Admittedly, this was done after filing of the Contempt petition i.e. on

03.02.2025.

13. Now the issue is, ‘whether not depositing the amount earlier and

depositing it later on, will be a sufficient to invoke contempt

jurisdiction?’.

14. This Court feels that the contempt jurisdiction is not to be

exercised in usual manner and it has to be exercised only when there is

willful violation of the order of the Court and for which no explanation

is offered. This Court feels that the submission made by the Union of

Seema 7/8
42 Conp-12-2026.doc

India about making payment to the SLAO but not verified by SLAO

and subsequently deposited in the Court is not of such a nature so as to

persuade this Court to exercise the contempt jurisdiction.

15. Furthermore, there is an observation by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court about grant of the component under Section 23 (1-A) of the

Land Acquisition Act. It means, the amount under the said head is in

dispute. If it is so, then it will be proper to decide this issue in

Execution Application and such issue cannot be raised by taking

recourse to the contempt jurisdiction. It is matter of record that both

the parties are relying upon the calculations of the amount and

admittedly, there is dispute.

16. So this Court feels that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be

resorted to and there is no merit in the contempt petition. Hence, it is

dismissed.

17. All the contention of the parties about entitlement of the claim

are kept open and they can be raised in the Execution proceedings.

[S. M. MODAK, J.]

Seema 8/8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.