Bombay High Court
A H WADIA CHARITY TRUST BOMBAYversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -3 OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- FARHAN PARVEZ DUBASH
Holding
The contempt petition is dismissed as there is no willful breach and an alternate remedy of execution is available.
Summary
The petitioners, original claimants in two land acquisition cases, filed a contempt petition alleging that the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the acquiring body willfully failed to pay the enhanced compensation, solatium and interest ordered by the court on 11 December 2024. The court had directed the respondents to compute the balance amount and pay it within four weeks of the petitioners' submission of calculations on 24 December 2024. The respondents filed an appeal and several interlocutory applications, which remain pending, and no payment was made. The petitioners argued that the non‑payment amounted to willful disobedience, invoking Supreme Court precedents on contempt. The respondents contended that the matter is a money decree that can be executed and that contempt cannot be invoked while an appeal is pending. The court held that there was no intentional or willful breach and that an alternate remedy of execution exists, rendering the contempt petition untenable, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents’ failure to pay the enhanced compensation constitutes willful disobedience of the court’s order attracting contempt jurisdiction.
- Whether a contempt petition is maintainable when the decree is a money decree that can be executed and an appeal is pending.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 26(2)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 4
Subjects
- contempt of court
- money decree
- land acquisition
- execution of decree
- willful disobedience
- appeal pending
- solatium
- statutory interest
- Land Acquisition Act
- CPC
Judgment
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
JYOTI
PRAKASH
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
PRAKASH
PAWAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PAWAR Date:
2026.01.31
17:54:36
+0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 36 OF 2025
IN
LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO. 18 OF 1988
A H Wadia Charity Trust, Bombay … Petitioner
V/s.
Special Land Acquisition Officer -3
(Office of the Collector) & Ors. … Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, a/w. Mr. Niel Patel, Mr. Levi Rubens, Mr. Yohaan
Rubens, Ms. Tinaz Kapadia and Ms. Unnati Bane i/b. LR and Associates for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Himahsu Takke - AGP for State.
Mr. Amrut Joshi a/w. Ms. Radha Bhandari & Mr. Yazad Udwadia i/b. M.V.
Kini & Co. for Respondent No.2 (AAI).
____________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY 2026
P. C :
1. The present Contempt Petition has been filed by the Petitioners
herein / Original Claimants who assert that the Contemnors / Respondents
herein / Original Applicants have willfully breached and disobeyed the order
dated 11th December 2024 by not depositing the enhanced compensation
determined by this Court.
2. A brief chronology of the relevant dates and events that is
required for adjudicating the issue which arises in the present Contempt
Page 1 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
Petition is set out hereunder:
(i) Pursuant to the publication of Section 4 notification
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“said Act”) that was issued
in respect of lands in LAR No. 19 of 1988 and LAR No. 18 of
1988 dated 12th August 1982, possession of the lands was
taken on 20th February 1986 and the Special Land Acquisition
Officer (SLAO) passed the award under Section 11 of the said
Act on 23rd September 1986.
(ii) Pursuant thereto on 17th August 1988, LAR Nos. 18
and 19 came to be filed by the Original Claimants under
Section 18 of the said Act which came to be disposed of by a
common judgment and order dated 11th December 2024
(common judgment and order) whereunder, both References
were allowed, and the Claimant was awarded enhanced
market value together with 30% solatium thereon and
statutory interest on the enhanced market value until
payment. It was further directed that the payment already
made to the Claimant by the SLAO under the twin awards in
the two LAR’s should be adjusted from the market value
awarded in the common judgment and order and the SLAO
was directed to compute the balance amount and pay it to the
Page 2 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
Original Claimants as directed therein. The Original Claimants
were directed to file the calculation and computation of the
aforesaid market value and statutory benefits payable to them
under the common judgment and order with the SLAO and
Acquiring Body within two weeks from the date of the
common judgment and order and the SLAO and Acquiring
Body were directed to pay the original Claimants, the balance
amount in both the LAR’s within a period of four weeks from
the date of submission of calculation after making due
adjustment of the amounts already paid to the original
Claimants under the twin awards dated 23rd September 1986
in both the cases. This common judgment and order contains
directions that the Petitioners contend have been breached
and disobeyed by the Respondents.
(iii) In accordance with the directions contained in
the common judgment and order, on 24th December 2024, the
Petitioners submitted their calculation and computation of the
market value of the acquired lands to the SLAO who in turn,
by his letter dated 8th January 2025, requested the Petitioners
to submit their Aadhar Card, PAN Card and other documents
which thereafter also came to be submitted on
Page 3 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
17th January 2025.
(iv) The timeline prescribed under the common
judgment and order expired on 21 st January 2025 (four weeks
from 24th December 2024 when the calculation and
computation was submitted by the Petitioners).
(v) Subsequent correspondence was thereafter
exchanged between the parties whereunder the Petitioners
called upon the Respondents to pay the enhanced
compensation in accordance with the calculation and
computation provided by them, pursuant to the common
judgment and order.
(vi) On 24th March 2025, Appeal No. 9406 of 2025
was filed by the Acquiring Body/Respondent No.2 herein and
on 28th March 2025, an Interim Application came to be
preferred therein seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in
filing the said Appeal and another Interim Application was
also taken out therein, seeking stay on the execution of the
common judgment and order. It appears that since then,
though the said Appeal and the Interlocutory Applications
taken out therein were listed on Board on atleast 9 occasions,
Page 4 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
the same did not reach and as a result, till date, no orders
have been passed therein.
(vii) Though, the said Appeal was filed in March 2025, it
came to be served on the Petitioners herein only on or about
17th September 2025 after the present Contempt Petition was
served on the Respondents on 16th September 2025 and
during this period also, correspondence was exchanged
between the parties whereunder, the Petitioner sought
compliance from the Respondents.
(viii) Ultimately, since there was no compliance
forthcoming, on 15th May 2025, the present Contempt Petition
has been filed for willful disobedience of the common
judgment and order.
3. The short point that arises for consideration in the present Writ
Petition before this Court is whether the Respondents can be stated to have
disobeyed and breached the directions given by this Court in the common
judgment and order which in effect, awards money to the Petitioners
herein/Original Claimants, in the two LAR’s in the form of enhanced
compensation, solatium, interest etc.
Page 5 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
4. Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, learned Counsel who appears on behalf
of the Petitioner submits that the present case is not one in which a simple
money decree has been awarded in favour of his clients. He contends that
the amount awarded to his client, which has been enhanced by the common
judgment and order, is one that has been awarded in lieu of acquisition of his
client’s property.
5. He submits that the Appeal against the common judgment and
order has been belatedly filed by Respondent No.2 and till date, they have
not even been successful in obtaining a stay on the execution of the common
judgment and order. He therefore submits that in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, there is ex-facie, a willful breach and disobedience of the
directions contained in the common judgment and order inasmuch as the
same expressly directs the Respondents to pay the amount to the Petitioners
within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of calculation and
computation of market value by them to the SLAO and the Acquiring Body
which, was admittedly done vide letter dated 24 th December 2024. He
therefore submits that the present Contempt Petition is maintainable and this
Court ought to entertain the same by admitting it and issuing the requisite
notice to the Respondents to show cause.
Page 6 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
6. In support, he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and Anr. 1 and in Maninderjit Singh
Bitta v. Union of India and Ors.2 to contend that whilst exercising contempt
jurisdiction, this Court should be primarily concerned with inquiring whether
the Contemnor is guilty of intentional and willful violation of the orders of
this Court even if it constitutes a civil contempt and Government
departments are no exception to it and especially when timelines are
prescribed, orders are required to be complied with, within the timelines so
directed.
7. Per contra, Mr. Amrut Joshi, learned Counsel appears on behalf
of the Respondents and submits that the present Contempt Petition is not
maintainable inasmuch as, the same has been filed in respect of a money
decree that has been awarded in favour of the Petitioners and no contempt
can lie for failure on the part of the Respondents in depositing the said
amount especially when they have already challenged the common judgment
and order on merits, which challenge is still pending adjudication before the
Division Bench of this Court. He therefore contends that there cannot be any
willful disobedience and/or breach stated to have been committed by the
Respondents.
1 (2004) 1 SCC 360
2 (2012) 1 SCC 273
Page 7 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
8. In support, he relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in
R.N. Dey and Ors.v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Ors. 3 and in Ram Kishan v.
Tarun Bajaj and Ors.4 and in Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Anr. Vs. Amazon
Technologies Inc.5
9. He therefore submits that there is no merit in the captioned
Petition which ought not to be entertained by this Court.
10. I have heard the submissions made by both parties and perused
the record. Upon careful perusal, it is revealed that though the common
judgment and order directs payment by the Respondents to the Petitioners
and certain timelines are prescribed therein for making such payment the
Respondent No.2 has challenged the same and filed Appeal No. 9406 of 2025
and also taken out Interim Applications therein seeking condonation of delay
and for stay which are still pending adjudication before the Division Bench of
this Court. A perusal of the Roznama of this matter reveals that the said
Appeal and Interlocutory Applications have been listed on several occasions
(at least nine occasions) since they were filed and due to paucity of time, the
same did not reach. As a result, the Respondent No.2 herein/Appellant
therein has not been able to make out their case on merits, as pleaded in the
said Appeal. Hence, it cannot be said that there is a deliberate and
3 (2000) 4 SCC 400
4 (2014) 16 SCC 204
5 (2025) SCC Online SC 2153
Page 8 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
intentional and wilful breach of the common judgment and order by the
Respondents.
11. Notwithstanding the above, in any event, and as more
particularly held by various judicial pronouncements, discussed hereunder,
the present Contempt Petition is based entirely on non-compliance/non-
payment of the decretal amount (of money) awarded in the common
judgment and order and the same would not be maintainable since the
common judgment and order is capable of being executed. It is a well settled
proposition that where there is an alternate efficacious remedy, contempt
jurisdiction cannot be invoked. This proposition would also apply to cases
where an order is capable of being enforced through execution, in which
cases, the Apex Court and this Court have in several cases held that a
Contempt Petition would not lie.
12. Admittedly, till date, the Petitioner has not filed any execution
proceedings to execute the common judgment and order and therefore, the
Petitioner cannot be permitted to use the contempt jurisdiction of this Court
to enforce the same. This view is also reiterated in the decision in R.N. Dey
(supra) where the Supreme Court has held that the weapon of contempt is
not to be used for the execution of the decree or implementation of an order
for which an alternate remedy in law is provided for.
Page 9 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
13. Section 26 (2) of the said Act states that every award is deemed
to be a decree and the statement of grounds of every such award, are
deemed to be a judgment within the meaning of Section 2 (2) and Section
2 (9) respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for which, a
remedy of execution is expressly provided. Moreover, as laid down in
Lifestyle Equities (supra), although the word “shall” has been used in Order
41, Rule 5 of the CPC, yet the same is not mandatory in character and an
exceptional case has to be made out for seeking an unconditional stay of
execution of a money decree and if such case is made out, the Appellate
Court always has the discretion to stay the execution of the money decree
without imposing any conditions. It has also been held that there is no
principle of universal rule that in all cases of money decree, the Defendant
has to be directed to deposit the amount in Court and only then the question
of stay can be considered.
14. Mr. Joshi is at pains to point out the various grounds of
challenge that have been raised by his clients in the Appeal that has been
preferred against the common judgment and order and submits that he
would be in a position to convince the Appellate Court hearing this Appeal
that the common judgment and order is required to be stayed without the
requirement of his clients making the entire monetary deposit.
Page 10 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
15. Moreover, the law of contempt is well settled by several past
judicial pronouncements which state that contempt jurisdiction can be
invoked by a party only if such party is in a position to prove that there is a
deliberate and willful breach of an order passed by the Court.
16. Moreover, as held in Ram Kishan (supra), in order to punish the
contemnor, it has to be established that the disobedience of the order is
willful. In the present case, this Court does not find that there is any such
willful disobedience on the part of the Respondents in complying with the
common judgment and order. The judgments in Bank of Baroda (supra) and
Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra) are also of no assistance to the Petitioner and
are easily distinguishable in facts. There is no undertaking or consent terms
that has been breached or violated in the present case as was the case in
Bank of Baroda (supra). In Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra) the Supreme
Court had directed compliance of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (MV Act), Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (MV Rules) and the
implementation of the HSRP Scheme framed thereunder be done by various
States which was not done and it is under those peculiar facts that the said
judgment came to be passed. This is admittedly not the case in the present
matter and hence, these judgments do not assist the Petitioner.
Page 11 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
903.CONP./36/2025
A.H. Wadia Charity Trust Vs. SLAO
17. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there
is no merit in the present Contempt Petition and the same ought not to be
entertained. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
:: ORDER ::
(i) The Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.)
Mandar M.
Page 12 of 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 23rd January 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.