Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Letters Patent Appeals were maintainable and set aside the High Court’s contempt and division‑bench orders because the courts exceeded their jurisdiction and failed to resolve the basic factual dispute, directing the authorities to reconsider the matter afresh.

Summary

The case concerned about 24.82 acres of government land that had been assigned to respondents on pattas, which the authorities later attempted to resume without paying the ex‑gratia stipulated in GO No.1307. The respondents filed writ petitions and, after a single High Court judge ordered them to make representations, they filed contempt petitions alleging non‑payment. The single judge then directed payment of ex‑gratia for the entire land, a direction the authorities challenged through Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs). The Supreme Court held that the single judge exceeded his jurisdiction in the contempt proceedings, that the LPAs were maintainable, and that the High Court failed to address the factual dispute over whether the land was resumed or merely excavated. Consequently, the orders of the High Court were set aside and the matter was remitted to the authorities for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

The jurisdiction of a High Court single judge to pass ex‑gratia payment directions in contempt proceedings
Whether the Letters Patent Appeals filed against the High Court orders were maintainable
Whether the ex‑gratia payment should be made for the entire extent of the land despite disputes over area and nature of the land
Whether the High Court correctly distinguished earlier Supreme Court judgments and complied with judicial discipline
The scope of contempt jurisdiction in re‑examining the correctness of earlier orders

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 215
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

Land acquisitionEx‑gratiaContempt of courtLetters Patent AppealJurisdictionGovernment landResumptionJudicial discipline

Judgment

_(
I

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) A
v.
N. VASUDEVA RAO AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 28, 2007
B
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.]

Land Acquisition:
Acquisition/Resumption ofland by Government without payment
c
of ex-gratia-Challenged by assignee/owner-Single judge of High
Court directing authorities to consider representation ofpetitioners
for payment of ex-gratia-Not complied with by authorities-
Contempt petition-Single Judge directed payment of ex-gratia for D
entire extent ofthe land-LPA dismissed by High Court-On appeal
Held: LPA maintainable-Neither Single Judge nor Division Bench of
the High Court addressed the basic issue and came to an abrupt
conclusion-Hence, the order passed by the High Court set aside-
The authorities directed to consider the matter afresh-Directions
issued E

Judicial restraint-High Court distinguished the judgment
delivered by Supreme Court on the ground that no elaborate discussion
in the judgment-Such an observation by the High Court violative of
judicial discipline. F
The land in question, the Government land, was allegedly
assigned to the respondents on the basis ofpattas. Later, the land
was acquisitioned by the authorities without payment of ex-gratia.
Respondents filed writ petitions contending that the authorities have
resumed their land without payment of ex-gratia. Single Judge of G
the High Court disposed of the writ petitions directing respondents
to make a detailed representation to the authorities and the
authorities were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate

625 H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A order. The authorities did not make ex-gratia payments to
respondents. Aggrieved respondents filed Contempt petitions before
the High Court. The Single judge of the High Court directed payment
of ex-gratia payment for the entire extent of the land. Appellant
authorities and others filed LP As before the High Court against the
B order passed by the Single Judge which were dismissed by the High
Court. Hence the present appeals.

Appellant-authority contented that the Single Judge of the High
Court has no jurisdiction to give any direction in the manner done
while dealing with the contempt petitions and that the LP A was not
C maintainable.

Respondents-assignee ofland submitted that there was clear
violation of the order passed by the High Court in the writ petitions
and there was blatant attempt by the authorities to deny their
D legitimate claim; and that the land was resumed on and nothing has
been paid to them as compensation.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. It appears that there is also dispute about the area,
E so in the contempt petition no direction could have been given in the
manner done. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that
the LPA is not maintainable. In view of what has been stated in
Midnapore Peoples 'Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and
Ors., the LPA was clearly maintainable. (630-F]
F Union ofIndia & Ors. v. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1SCC613;
Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 7 SCC 261 and
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and
Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 399, relied on.
G 1.2. The High Court distinguished the judgment delivered in
Lalith Mathur 's case on the ground that there was no elaborate
discussion in the judgment and therefore no reason is discernible.
To say the least, the alleged distinguishing feature as pointed out
by the High Court not to follow the judgment cannot be said to be
graceful. It is clearly violative of the judicial discipline. It has been
H
-{
I

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) v. 627
N. VASUDEVARAO [PASA YAT,J.]

stated that payments have been made to some persons and no A
departure could be made in the present case. Actually there is no
definite material as to whether the land was resumed or it was an
excavated land. (631-B, CJ

Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao, (2000] 10 SCC 285, B
referred to.

1.3. It appears from record that three counter affidavits have
been filed and one of the basic issues was whether the land was
resumed or excavated land. There is no definite material in this
regard brought by the respondents on record. Three counter C
affidavits filed by the respondents clearly indicate their definite
stand. Neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High
Court addressed the basic issues and on the other hand came to
abrupt conclusions. Therefore, the orders passed by the Single Judge
_and the Division Bench of the High Court deserve to be set aside. D
The authorities shall however consider the matter in detail and record
the findings. (631-D, E, F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4649-
4650 of 2004.
E
From the final Common Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2003 of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in L.P.A.
Nos. 184 and 185/2002.

R. Sundervardhan, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla
and T.V. George for the Appellant. F

A. Subba Rao for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT P ASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the G
order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
disposing of four Letters Patent Appeals i.e. LP A Nos. 184 and 185 of
2002 and 33 and 34 of2003, filed by the appellants.
2. Background facts need to be noted in brief before dealing with
H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A the rival contentions.
3. The land in question to an extent of 24 acres 82 cents is
Government land which was said to have been assigned to the respondents
herein on the basis ofD Fonn pattas. As per the tenns and conditions of
B the pattas, whenever the land is required for any public purpose, the same
can be resumed by the Government on payment of certain ex-gratia
amount.
4. The concerned Executive Engineer SRBC Division, Koilakuntla
is said to have sent proposals for acquiring about 24 acres 82 cents that
C is the land in question situated in Cherlopalli village of Owk Manda!.
Accordingly, the Revenue authorities surveyed the land and arrived at the
actual extent ofland involved to be only 20 Acres 75 cents and the said
land is Government land and therefore proposal for resumption of the land
was said to have been initiated.
D 5. Respondents herein filed W.P. Nos. 6511of1999 and W.P. No.
6513 of 1999, inter alia, contending that the appellants have resumed
their land without paying ex gratia amounts in tenns ofGOMs. No. 1307
dated 23.12.1993.
E 6. Learned Single Judge by common judgment and order dated
11.8.1999 in Writ Petition Nos. 6511 & 6513 of 1999 disposed of the
writ petitions directing the respondents herein to make a detailed
representation to the authorities within four weeks and the authorities were
directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order within a period
F of six weeks. Subsequently, respondents herein filed Contempt Case No.
493 of 2001 and Contempt Case No. 1211 of 2001 before the High
Court inter alia alleging that despite court's order the ex-gratia payment
was not made. The appellants filed detailed counter affidavits in the said
contempt petitions inter alia indicating that the land in question was not
G resumed and out of the alleged land in question i.e. out of Acre 24.82
cents, soil was stated to have been excavated only in Acre 2.40 cents
and as such they are not entitled to any ex-gratia payment in respect of
the entire extent.
7. A learned Single judge of the High Court on consideration of the
H matter by a common order dated 11.9.2002 in the two contempt cases
/
.-{
I

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(L.A.) v. 629
N. VASUDEVARAO [PASAYAT,J.]
held that the department has resumed the land in question, exonerated A
the concerned officer and directed payment of ex-gratia payment in terms
of GO Ms. No. 1307 dated 23 .12.1993 for the entire extent of the land.
Appellant filed LPA Nos. 184 and 185 of 2002 before the High Court
against the order passed by learned Single Judge. The other LPA No.
33 of2003 was filed by the Commissioner of Municipality, Tuni. The third B
parties filed LPA No. 34 of2003 along with a Misc. Petition seeking
permission of the Court to condone delay in filing of the LPA against the
order. They also filed another Misc. petition to direct the Municipality to
deliver possession of the shops as per the terms and conditions of the
auction. These two appeals have been filed by the functionaries of the C
State Government against the combined order of the High Court in the
Letters Patent Appeal.
8. Stand of the appellant in these appeals is as follows:
Primarily, it is contented that the learned Single Judge has no D
jurisdiction to give any direction in the manner done while dealing with
the contempt petition. In any event, a learned Single Judge has no
jurisdiction as his order merging to the order of Division Bench. Finally it
is submitted that the LPA was not maintainable.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted E
that there was clear violation of the order passed in the writ petitions and
there was blatant attempt to deny the legitimate claim of the respondents
herein. The land was resumed on 18 .11.1998 and till now nothing has
been paid to the respondent as compensation. Reference has been made
to several correspondences between Municipal Revenue Officer Owk F
Mandalam and the Special Deputy Collector, Nandyal to show that the
lands of the respondents were resumed.
10. The law as to nature of order that can be passed in contempt
proceedings had been elaborately dealt with by this Court in several cases. G
., In Union ofIndia & Ors. v. Subedar Devassy PV, [2006] 1 SCC 613
it was held as follows:
"2. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is
really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision
H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It
would not be pennissible for a court to examine the correctness
of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a
view different from what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar
view was taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union ofIndia, [2001] 10
B sec 496. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily
concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party
who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the
directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or
indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach
c the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable.
Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher
court. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon
itself the power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not
dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Though
D strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellants
on a three-Judge Bench decision in Niaz Mohd. v. State of
Haryana, [1994] 6 SCC 332, we find that the same has no
application to the facts of the present case. In that case the question
arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand
of the appellants, the least it could have done was to assail
E
correctness of the judgment before the higher court."

11. The above position was earlier highlighted in Prithawi Nath Ram
v. State of Jharkhand, [2004] 7 SCC 261.

F 12. It appears that there is also dispute about the area, so in the
contempt petition no direction could have been given in the manner done.
The Division Bench has held that the LPA is not maintainable. In view of
what has been stated in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
v. Chunilal Nanda and Ors., [2006] 5 SCC 399, the LPA was clearly
G maintainable.
13. In Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao, [2000] 10 SCC 285
it was inter alia held as follows.
"3. The above will show that the High Court has directed the State
Government to absorb the respondent against a suitable post either
H
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) v. 631
N. VASUDEVARAO[PASAYAT,J.]

in a government department or in any public sector undertaking. A
This order, in our opinion, is wholly without jtirisdiction and could
not have been made in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts
Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution."
14. Reliance was placed on two Division Bench Judgments holding B
that contempt petition was not maintainable before Learned Single Judge
as his order had merged with the Division Bench order. As regards Lalith
Mathur 's case (supra), the High Court distinguished the judgment on the
ground that there was no elaborate discussion in the judgment and
therefore no reason is discernible. To say the least, the alleged C
distinguishing feature as pointed out by the High Court not to follow the
judgment cannot be said to be graceful. It is clearly violative of the judicial
discipline. It has been stated that payments have been made to some
persons and no departure could be made in the present case. Actually
there is no definite material as to whether the land was resumed or it was
an excavated land. D
15. It appears from record that three counter affidavits have been
filed and one of the basic issues was whether the land was resumed or
excavated land. There is no definite material in this regard brought by the
respondents on record. Three counter affidavits filed by the respondents E
clearly indicate their definite stand. Neither learned Single Judge nor the
Division Bench addressed the basic issues and on the other hand came
to abrupt conclusions. Therefore, the orders passed by learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench deserve to be set aside, which we direct.
The authorities shall however consider the matter in detail and record F
findings keeping in view the GO, the factual position and evidence led
before it. The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as
to costs.
S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.