Holding

No contempt or perjury proceedings could be sustained against Pangare, but a cost of Rs.10,000 was imposed for unfair conduct.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra, through MHADA, filed contempt and perjury applications against P.K. Pangare alleging that he misled the Supreme Court by denying construction on land covered by a prohibitory order. Pangare had sold the land before the order, and construction was subsequently carried out by later owners, notably VIPL. The Court held that the contempt petition could not succeed because the order prohibited construction, not the act of selling, and the respondents against whom notices were not served could not be held in contempt. Regarding perjury, the Court found no sufficient proof of false sworn statements but noted Pangare's conduct was unfair, imposing a cost of Rs.10,000. The applications were dismissed, and the Court directed further enquiry by MHADA and the Municipal Council and prohibited any further construction until the pending writ petition is decided.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt of court petition can be sustained against a person who sold the disputed land before a Supreme Court order prohibiting construction was issued.
Whether perjury can be established against a person who denied construction activity despite the activity being carried out by subsequent owners.
Whether costs may be imposed for conduct unfair to the Court even in the absence of contempt or perjury.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976s. 41(3), s. 44(3), s. 44(4)

Subjects

contempt of courtperjuryland acquisitionconstruction prohibitionMaharashtra Housing and Area Development ActSupreme Court ordercost of proceedingsunfair conduct

Judgment

\

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. A
v.
..... PANDURANG K. PANGARE AND ORS .

FEBRUARY 13, 1995

[R.M. SAHAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] B

Cbntempt of Court Act, 197~onstruction on land-Court prohibiting
construction-Person alleged to have disobeyed the order already sold the
land-Held, not guilty of contempt or perjury but was unfair to Court-Cost
of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the alleged contemner. c
The State Government issued a notification whereby it acquired the
land belonging to the respondent. The respondent filed a writ petition in
the High Court challenging the said acquisition. The High Court allowed
the petition. The State Government filed S.L.P. in this Court against the
said judgment. In the meantime the respondent sold his land. Sub- D
sequently this Court passed an order that there would be no construction.
However, it was found by this Court that construction was being carried
on which was denied by the respondent. The appellant filed two application
in this Court against the respondent - one for contempt and the other for
perjury as he deliberately misled the Court by suppressing facts and E
making untrue allegations which was IJ_enied by the respondent.

Disposing of the application, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The order prohibiting any construction to be raised over
. the land in dispute was passed by this Court. It is clear that the respondent
had sold his land before the prohibitory order was passed by this Court.
F
There is thus no option but to reject the contempt application against the
respondent. (53-H, 54-A, DJ

1.2. As regards the application for prejury it must be stressed that
this Court was bamed by the conduct o.f the respondent even though he G
had sold the property. Yet it was the respondent who was not only appear-
ing in this Court but was assuring through his counsal and contesting that
no construction was going on in the plot in dispute. The explanation of the
respondent that a portion was still in his possession is not convincing.
Since the respondent had sold the property and he was not making any H
49
)
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A construction on the portion which was in his occupation there was no
occasion for him to make a statement which was apt to mislead the Court.
Technically speaking he may be right that he was not making any construc-
tion. But factually he was wrong as construction activity was going on in
the plot. He may not be guilty of contempt or perjury but he was certainly
B unfair to the Court. It is not proposed to 'take any action against him for
perjury but he is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 which shall be
deposited by him within one month with the Legal Aid Committee of this
Court. [54-E-H, 55-A-B]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 2 of 1993.
c AND

Contempt Petition No. 389 of 1993.

IN
D Civil Appeal No. 7212 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.8~f the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 3585 of 1984.

S. Ganesh, Mrs. Reema Bhandari and M~. Shroff for the Appellant.
E
Ashok H. Desai, U.R. Lalit, Ms Bharti Bheda, D.M. Nargolkar and
Rajinder Mathur for the Respondents.

AS. Bhasme for the State.
F The Judgment of the Cm~rt was delivered by
i

R.M. SARAI, J. These are two applications filed by Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Authority (in brief 'MHADA') - one for
taking proceedings for contempt against the opposite parties and other for
G initiating proceedings for perjury against Shri P.K. Pangare (referred in
brief as 'Pangare'), the respondent in S.L.P. a1.d opposite party No. 1 in
the contempt petition.

Before adverting to these applications it is necessary to mention in
brief the background in which these applications came to be filed. On 12th
H January 1980 a Notification was issued under Sectilin 41(3) of the
'
STATEOFMAHARASHTRAv. PANGARE[SAHAI,J.] 51

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (referred as 'the A
Act') by the Deputy Secretary of the Government, Housing and Special
Assistant Department, Government of Maharashtra whereby it was notified
that the lands mentioned in the Schedule vested in the Government of
Maharashtra. In pursuance of this Notification name of MHADA was
mutated over survey no. 18. The acquisition was challenged by the owner,
B
Pangare by Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1981 on 12th November 1981. It was
allowed on 8th November 1983 following the judgment rendered in Writ
Petition No. 4192 of 1981 by which sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 44
of the Act had been struck down as ultra vires. The State filed S.L.P. in this
Court against the decision in the main writ petition and other writ petitions
including the one filed by Pangare which was numbered as S.L.P. No. 3340 C
of 1984. Notice was issued on it but no interim order was granted. The
S.L.P. filed by one Basantibai was allowed in 1986. The judgment and order
of the High Court was reversed. It was held that Section 44 of the Act did
not suffer from any invalidity. The S.L.P. filed against Pangare was however
dismissed on 18th April 1991. On 4th December 1992 an application was D
filed on behalf of the State seeking review of the Order as the Order was
passed under misapprehension. It was stated that at the time of argument
it was urged by the learned counsel for the State of Maharastra that the
controversy raised in the petition stood· concluded by a decision of this
Court which fact was noticed in the Order, yet by mistake in the operative
portion it was mentioned that the S.L.P. is dismissed. It was served on E
Pangare on 7th April 1993. The Order was recalled on 3rd September 1993.

What happened in the meantime that Pangare applied for mutation
of his name in the revenue records. Notice of it appears to have been
,. served on MHADA. But it is averred it did not file any reply nor any one F
appeared. Consequently the application was allowed and the name of
MHADA was directed to be deleted and an order was passed directing
that the name of Pangare be entered in the revenue records. Pangare sold
portion of Survey No. 18 to one Mohd. Shafi Abdul Wahab Shaikh. The
-( said Shaikh in 1990 obtained sanction from the Municipal Council for
layout plan and sub- divided the area purchased by him into 7 sub-plots G
for building purposes. In January 1992 Shaikh sold all the 7 plots by
separate conveyance to one Shri S.R. Gupta and six other persons. In
October 1992 the revised layout plan was sanctioned by the Municipal
Council and the plan was sanctioned in respect of the said plots. Comnien-
cement certificate was also issued. Between January to March 1993 plot H
_)
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A nos. 1 to 6 of Survey No. 18 were sold in favour of M/s. Volition Invest-
ments Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'VIPL') by separate deeds of
conveyance.

When notice of review was served .on Pangan:: he filed reply to the
B affidavit filed in support of the review application on 27th July 1993. It was
stated by him that even though the writ petition had been allowed, but
MHADA had not challenged the Order passed by the High Court by way
of S.L.P. Therefore, it had no locus standi to file review petition. It was
stated when his name was mutated over the land he sold it in favour of
Shaikh for a total consideration of Rs. 8 lacs. The said Shaikh had issued
C Public Notice in the local Lonawala Times indicating his intention to
purchase the property, but no objection was filed. Not only that he sub-
mitted a revised layout building plan to the Municipal Authorities which
was sanctioned. The same procedure was repeated by Shri S.R. Gupta (in • r
brief 'Gupta') when he purchased the land. It was further stated that when
D plan was sent by Gupta to Municipal Authorities, notice was given to
MHADA but no objection was filed. Notices are stated to have been got
published even by VIPL after agreement was entered between Gupta and
VIPL. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed in October 1993 by Shri S.V. Bapat,
Assistant Engineer, MHADA in reply to the affidavit filed by the respon-
dent on 21st September 1993 and 1st October 1993, it is not denied that
E the MHADA did not receive any notice when Pangare applied for change
- of mutation of his name over the land in dispute. What has been stated is
that MHADA became aware sometime in Aplil 1992 of the proposal to
erect multi-storeyed building on the site and then it addressed a letter to
the Lonawala Municipal Council pointfrig out specifically that the S.L.P.
F filed by the State was pending and that no building activity should be
permitted to be carried on on the fand by any one. But according to its
own affidavit the Lonawala Municipal Council did not act in accordance
with the said reasonable request and proceeded straightaway to sanction
the respondent's buµding plan and also to issue commencement certificate
in October 1992. It h"'s been stated that this was done by the Municipal "'r-"
G Council because Gupta to whom the land was sold is a builder and his
brother was Councillor of the Lonawala Municipal Council. It is further
stated that in March, 1993 MHADA had issued a letter to the Tehsildar ..,.
that no mutation should be done and it even issued an advertisement in
May 1993 calling upon persons not to purchase any flat or to advance any
H amount for purchase of flat as the building was being constructed illegally.
STATEOFMAHARASHTRAv. PANGARE[SAHAI,J.) 53

When S.L.P. was listed on 17t4 September 1993 it was brought to the A
notice of this Court by the MHADA which had come on the scene by now,
that the respondents were carrying on construction over the land in dis-
.pute. The petition was directed to be listed on 24th September 1993 and
an order was passed that in the meanwhile there will be no further
construction. When the matter was taken up on 24th September 1993 it was B
stated by the learned counsel for MHADA that the construction activity
was going on which was vehemently opposed by the other side. However,
on the request of the learned counsel the petition was adjourned. Since
both parties were vehemently refuting allegations of each other, on 15th
October 1993 this Court directed the Principal District Judge to make a
spot inspection and submit a report if any ·construction was being carried C
on. Inspection was made on 22nd October 1993. It was found that construc-
tion work was going on in Survey No. 18/2. An affidavit was filed by
Pangare denying that any construction activity was being carried on on the
land in dispute. When the petition was listed again on 26th November 1993
the application filed by MHADA for impleadment was allowed and the D
contempt petition filed by it was taken on Board. Notice was directed to·
be issued on it. The application purported to be against Pangare as
opposite party no. 1, Gupta as opposite party no. 2 and four other persons
as Chief Promoters of VIPL. In response to this notice reply was filed by
Gupta stating that he had already sold the plot and he was not making any
construction, therefore, the contempt proceedings may be discharged. E
Affidavits were also filed by the alleged chief promoters of VIPL stating
that they had nothing to do with VIPL and one Harakchand Nagindas
Shah, Director. In the circumstances the notices issued against Gupta and
others were discharged on 24th October 1994. The MHADA was per-
mitted to implead Harakchand Nagindas Shah, Director of VIPL as op- F
posite party no. 3. Notice was issued to Shri Shah in reply to which he has
filed detailed affidavit.

MHADA filed an application for taking proceedings in perjury
-(
against Pangare as he was deliberately misleading the Court by supp,.t:ssing
facts and making unture allegations. In reply Pangare filed an affidavit G
denying the allegations and reiterating what was said by him in his earlier
affidavits.

We shall take up the contempt application first. The order prohibit-
ing any construction to be raised over the land in dispute was passed on H
;
J

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A 17th September 1993. The question is whether this order was violated by
any person and if so its effect. From the facts stated above it is clear that
Pangare had sold his interest and it was unlimately VIPL in whose favour
the property was transferred sometime between January and March 1993.
.It further appears that this compru;ly started construction: in June and July
B 1993. But the contempt application was filed against Pangare, Gupta and
four other persons alleged to be Chief Promoters of the VIPL. It has been
mentioned earlier that in view of the affidavits filed by them the notices
issued against them were discharged. Shri Shah, the Director of VIPL was
impleaded on October 1994 only. Since the day he was impleaded and
received the notice which was served on his counsel on the same day in
_C , the Court no constructiOn has been carried on in the land in dispute.
Therefore, even though the construction had been started by VIPL in June
and July 1993 and it was continued by it even after the order was passed
by this Court as stands established by the affidavits filed by the officials .of
MHADA and the report of Additional District Judge, yet Shri Shah being
D not a party and the n<?tice for contempt having not been served either on
Shri Shah or on VIPL before November 1994, no proceedings for contempt
can be taken against him. There is thus no option but to reject the contempt
application against Shri Shah.

As regards the application for perjury we must confess that we had
Ebeen bailed by the conduct. of Pangare
I
as even though he had sold the
property in favour of Shaikh who in its turn sold it in favour of Gupta and
it ultimately came to VIPL yet it was Pangare who was not only appearing
in this Court but was assuring through his counsel and contesting that no
construction was going on on the plot in dispute. The explanation of the
F learned counsel appearing for VIPL that Pangare filed his affidavit because
a portion was still in his possession, is not convincing. In fact on 17th
September 1993 and 24th September 1993 it was Pangare's counsel who
vehemently challenged the statement made on behalf of MHADA that any
construction w~ going on. He has in his affidavit filed in reply to perjury,
G attempted to whittle down the report of the Additional District Judge by ""!-
saying that it does not indicate that construction was going on. Since
Pangare had sold the property and he was Iiot making any construction on
the portion which was in his. occupation there was no occasion for him to
make such statment which was apt to mislead the Court. Technically
H speaking he may be right that he was not making any construction. But
\

STATEOFMAHARASHTRAv. PANGARE[SAHAI,J.) 55

factually he was wrong as construction activity was going on in the plot. He A
may not be guilty of contempt or perjury b'ut he was certainly unfair to the
Court. It is not necessary to say anything further. We do not propose to
take any action against him for perjury but we are of opinion that he should
be directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 which shall be deposited by him
within one month with the Legal Aid Committee of this Court. B

This disposes of the two applications filed by MHADA. We may also
express our displeasure with the casualness with which MHADA has dealt
with the matter. In the affidavit filed by Pangare and Shah it is stated that
when Gupta purchased the land he not only notified it 'but even sent
intimation to the MHADA. That was in 1988. Even the VIPL when it C
entered into an agreement of sale with Gupta is stated to have intimated
th~ MHADA in 1992. But they slept over the matter. No reply has been
filed in this Court about the intimation and service of notice to MHADA.
Similarly we are also at pains to observe that the Municipal Council despite
intimation from MHADA in 1992 that the dispute in respect of the plot D
no. 18 was pending in the Supreme Court chose to sanction the plan of
VIPL. Since sufficient . material is not before us we are directing the
Chairman of both MHADA and the Municipal Council to make an enquiry
into the authenticity of these allegations and if it is true that MHADA was
served in 1988 then why no office appeared on its behalf and did not bring E
it to the notice of the Mutation Authority that dispute was pending in this
Court. Similarly we also direct the Chairman, Municipal Council to look
into the matter and to fmd out whether it was correct as stated by MHADA
in its affidavit that despite intimation by it the Municipal Council sanc-
tioned the plan of VIPL. If it is found to be true then both the Authorities
are directed to take action against the officials concerned and report
F
compliance of it to this Court within six months.

The learn~d counsel for VIPL vehemently prayed that they may be
permitted to complete the constructions. The prayer is rejected. We make
it clear that VIPL shall not either itself or through any other person or G
assignee, raise any further construction nor it shall carry on any building
activity in the building. till the disposal of the writ petition by the High
Court.

In the circumstances of the case indicated above we request the High H
/

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A Court to decide the writ petition of Pangare which stands transferred to it
in view of the allowing of the S.L.P., within a period of three months from
the date a copy of this order is produced in that Court. The Registrar after
production of the copy shall obtain orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and
get the case listed before appropriate Beench for disposal.
B The two applications are dispos~d of accordingly.

v.s.s. Petitions disposed of.

)