Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIAversusRESHMA YADAV AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2006 INSC 697
- Decided
- 12 October 2006
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- H K SEMA
Holding
The Court held that the cause of action for damages arose from the respondents' willful violation of the Supreme Court's order, not from a proceeding under the Public Premises Act, and therefore the Court could direct payment of rent arrears and compensation.
Summary
The Union of India sought damages for the unauthorized occupation of shops and stalls in the Lodhi Road Complex after the Supreme Court cancelled earlier allotments and ordered the occupants to vacate. The respondents, who never participated in the tender process, remained in possession despite notices and a contempt petition, which was later dropped when they finally delivered vacant possession. The Union filed IA No.54 asking the Court to order the respondents to pay rent arrears and compensation for the period of unlawful occupation. The respondents argued that only the Estate Officer under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 could award such damages. The Court held that the cause of action arose from willful violation of its own order, not from a proceeding under the 1971 Act, and therefore it could direct the respondents to pay the arrears as calculated. The respondents were ordered to pay the specified damages within two months, with interest for delay, and the petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to award damages for unauthorized occupation arising from contempt of its order, rather than under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
- Whether the power to award such damages lies exclusively with the Estate Officer under Section 7 of the 1971 Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
contempt of courtdamagesunauthorised occupationpublic premises acttender processexchequer lossrent arrearsSupreme Court jurisdictionpolicy revision
Judgment
UNION OF INDIA A
v.
RESHMA VADA V AND ORS.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] B
Damages/Compensation-Liability to pay-Unauthorized occupation
of shops/stalls despite court's order to deliver vacant possession-Highest
bidder deprived occupation of shops/stalls thereby huge loss to exchequer C
for wilful violation of court's order-Hence, contemnors liable to pay damages/
arrears of rent for the specified period-Estate Officer cannot exercise such
power in terms of the 1971 Act since entire cause of action did not arise in
a proceeding initiated under the Act-Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971---Section 7.
D
In a writ petition, allotment of shops/stalls was challenged on the ground
of illegality. High Court directed cancellation of allotment and framing of a
policy regarding allotment of shops/stalls, and that allottees in possession
not selected in the allotment, to vacate the shops/stalls within three months.
Pursuant thereto, the policy was revised. Tenders were invited for allotment
of shops/stalls. Respondents did not participate in the tender nor their names E
were amongst the persons selected in the tenders opened and remained
unauthorized occupants of the shops/stalls. Appellant-Union oflndia issued
notices to the respondents to vacate the shops and hand over the peaceful
possession but the respondents failed to do so. Thereafter, contempt petition
was filed, however, the same was dropped later since the respondents delivered F
possession of the stalls/shops.
The present application has been filed for the direction to the
respondents-contemnors to pay damages/compensation for their use and
unauthorized occupation of shops/stalls in their possession.
G
Respondents-contemnors contended that this Court is not a proper forum
to grant such prayer; and that such powers can be exercised by the Estate
Officer in terms of section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971.
209 H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A Disposing of the IA's, the Court
HELD: The entire cause of action for the direction to the respondents-
contemnors to pay damages/compensation for their use and unauthorized
occupation of shops/stalls in their possession arose not in a proceeding
initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
B 1971 but for wilful violation of this Court's Order. The respondents neither
participated in the tender nor their names were included from amongst the
select list and remained unauthorized occupants depriving the highest bidder
to occupy the shops/stalls thereby incurring huge loss to the exchequer by
reason of their contemptuous misbehaviour violating the order of the Highest
C Court of the land. This would warrant the respondents to pay rent/damages at
the rate quoted by the highest bidder against their shops/stalls for their
unauthorised use and occupation till the date they delivered vacant possession
as per the chart furnished giving details of the arrears of rent/damages
payable by the contemnors. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay
the arrears of rent/damages within the period specified.1216-A-DJ
D
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 54 in Contempt Petition (C)
No. 158/1998.
IN
E Writ Petition (Civil) No. 585 of 1994.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Ranjeet Kumar, (A.C.), Indira Sawhney, R.S. Rana, V.K. Verma and
Shreekant N. Terdal for the Petitioner.
F
Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Krishna Kumar, M.C. Dhingra. R.N. Keshwani, Pratibha
Jain, Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish Garg, K.K. Gupta, Rani Chhabra, Prem Malhotra
and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
H.K.SEMA, J. Heard the parties.
Writ Petition (C) No.585 of 1994 was disposed of by this Court on
I 1.10.1996 inter alia with the following directions:
"Now, to take care of this illegality, we have to take two steps. First,
H
U.0.1. v. RESHMA YADAV [SEMA . .I.] 211
cancel the allotments. To decide as to who should get the shops/ A
stalls, the Government would first consider whether its policy of 1994,
and categorization made by it need alteration in any way. While
undertaking this work, the Government would first consider whether
its policy of 1994 and categorization made by it need alteration in any
way. While undertaking this work, the Government would make such
provisions in the policy which are just and fair. After the policy has B
been framed the shops/stalls would be allotted as per the policy by
following a procedure having the sanction of law. In case it would be
that any of the present allottee would not be the person so selected,
he/she shall be asked to vacate the shop/stall by giving three months
time. We should require the Government to formulate the policy within C
two months and thereafter to complete the exercise of allotment within
two months. Till then the present allottees would be allowed to
continue.
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the policy was revised by an Order
dated 9.12.1996. The dispute involved is with regard to allotment of shop/ D
stalls in Lodhi Road Complex I and II, New Delhi. The tenders were called.
The tenders were opened in the presence of tenderers on 24.2.1997 at 3.00
P.M. As no tenders were received in respect of 6 shops/stalls in Lodhi Road
Complex-II, New Delhi on 24.2.1997. Further tenders were invited in respect
of the said 6 shops/stalls, which were opened in the presence of tenderers E
on 26.5.1997. However, no tender was received in respect of one shop (shop
No. I, Lodhi Road Compiex-11, New Delhi). Therefore, fresh tenders were invited
in respect of shop No. I but no tender was received. Therefore, again tender
was held on 24.4.1998 in respect of Lodhi Road Complex-II, New Delhi.
Undisputedly, in the aforesaid tenders the respondents numbering 31 F
either did not participate or find place amongst the persons so selected in
tenders opened on 24.2.1997 and 26.5.1997. They were asked to vacate the
shops/stalls noted against their names and hand over the peaceful and vacant
possession to the concerned CPWD within three months from the date of
issuance of notice.
G
Having failed to comply with the notices, Contempt Petition (C) No.158
of 1998 was initiated against the respondents. However, the same was dropped
by an order dated 13th December, 200 I since the vacant possession was
already delivered. The order dated 13th December, 2001 was in the following
terms:-
H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SU 'P. 7 S.C.R.
A "Since the possession has already been delivered, the contempt
proceeding is dropped".
1.A.No.54 has been filed by Union of India for direction to the alleged
contemnors to pay damages/compensation for their use and unauthorised
occupation of shops/stalls in their possession, after the orders of this Court.
B This Court issued notice to the respondents in I.A.No.54 on 16.9.2002.
On 14.3.2005 this Court passed the following order:-
"The applicant-Union of India is directed to file a chart, within two
weeks, giving the date of vacation of each of the respondents and the
C amount due till date of vacation. The chart shall indicate the date of
which respective respondents were required to vacate and also the
date of actual vacation along with the rate at which the arrears have
been calculated''.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Union of India filed a detailed chart
D giving the date of vacation of each of the respondents and amount due till
the date of vacation. The date of which respondents were required to vacate
and also the date of actual vacation along with the rate at which the arrears
have been calculated. The chart detailing the arrears of rent/damages payable
by the contemnors is as follows:-
E DETAILS OF ARREARS OF DAMAGES PAYABLE BY THE
CONTEMNORS
S.No. Shop/ Name of Date on Date of Rate Amount
Stall No. Contemnor/ which actual quoted due till
Occupant respond- arrears by the date
ents were calculated highest of
F required to at the bidder vacation
vacate vacation (Rs.) (Rs.)
I. Shop Smt. Reshma 25.6.97 17.7.2001 9410/- 458723/-
No. 6 Yadav
LRC.1
G 2. Shop Sh. Sant Lal 25.6.97 17.7.2001 80001- 389988/-
No. 8 Yadav
LRC.I
3. Shop Smt. Tara 25.6.97 8.11.2001 16.550/- 868324/-
No. 9 Chowdhary
LRC-1
H
U.0.1. v. RESH MA YADAV [SEMA, J.] 213
A
4. Shop Km. N. 25.6.97 23.5.2003 I0.893/- 772771/-
No.10 Lalitha
LRC.I
5. Shop Sh. Deepak 25.6.97 17.7.2001 12.100/- 589856/-
No.12 Kumar
LRC-1
B
6. Stall Smt. Neena 25.6.97 17.7.2001 2400/- 116997/-
No.2 Totalani
LRC-1
7. Stall Sh.lntezar 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3407/- 166087/- c
No.3 Ahmed
LRC-1
8. Stall Mrs. Shahnaz 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3194/- 165927/-
No.4 Bano
LRC-1 D
9. Stall Sh.Sudhir 25.6.97 17. 7.2001 3502/- 170718/-
No.5 Tiwari
LRC-1
10. Stall Smt.Renu 25.6.97 17.7.2001 4224/- 205914/-
No.6 Mathur
E
LRC-1
11. Stall Smt.Harvin- 25.6.97 17.7.2001 4680/- 228143/-
No.8 der Kaur
LRC-1
F
12. Stall Sh.Harish 25.6.97 30.7.1999 4503/- 113334/-
No.JO
LRC-1
13. Stall Sh.Ashutosh 25.6.97 25.8.1999 35011- 91050/-
No.14 Bhardwaj G
LRC-1
14. Stall Sh.Banarasi 25.6.97 17.7.2001 2720/- 132596/-
No.15 Dass
LRC-1
H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A 15. Stall Sh.Jai Prakash 25.6.97 25.7.01 3905/- 191371/-
No.16 Gupta
LRC-1
16. Stall Sh. Percy Pater 25.6.97 17. 7.2001 35051- 170864/-
No.17 James
LRC-1
B
17. Stall Sh.Harpreet 25.6.97 17.7.2001 35651- 173788/-
No.18 Singh
LRC-1
c 18. Stall Sh. Madan 25.6.97 17.7.2001 3705/- 180613/-
No. 19 Mohan
LRC-1 Sharma
19. Shop Sh.Karma 12.9.97 25.7.2001 12,605/- 585375/-
No.I Doorjee
D LRC.11
20. Shop Smt.Asha 12.9.97 17.7.2001 6400/- 295564/-
No.2 Singh
LRC.11
E 21. Shop Sh.Dhanna 12.9.97 17.4.1998 12033/- 86638/-
No.3 Bahadur
LRC.11
22. Shop Sh.KP Singh 12.9.97 3.5.2000 9155/- 290490/-
No.4
LRC.11
F
23. Stall Sh.SS 25.6.97 24.7.2001 6100/- 298743/-
No.I Sharma
LRC.11
24. Stall Smt.Madhu 25.6.97 9.6.1998 3600/- 41400/-
G No.2
LRC.11
25. Stall Sh.Gurbax 25.6.97 11.8.1998 2500/- 93887/-
No.5 Lal
LRC.11
H
U.O.l. v. RESHMA YADAV[SEMA,J.] 215
A
26. Stall Sh.Gulshan 25.6.97 17.7.2001 6100/- 297366/-
No. 6 Dhawan
LRC.11
27. Shop Sh. Ashish 25.6.97 17.4.1998 11105/- 108459/-
No.3 Kumar B
Hanu-
man
Road
28. Stall Smt.Pushpa 25.6.97 5.8.1999 4205/- 106645/-
No.5 Devi Sing
Hanu- c
man
Road
29. Stall Sh.Sushi I 25.6.97 16.12.1998 37551- 66525/-
No.8 Sinha
Hanu-
man D
Road
30. Stall Smt.Kusum 25.6.97 17.7.2001 5240/- 255442/-
No.12 Sharma
Hanu-
man E
Road
31. Shop Smt. Tulsi 25.6.97 16.7.2001 9200/- 448189/-
No.2 Balodi
Hanu-
man
Road F
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar learned amicus curiae appearing for Union of India
contended that the respondents contumaciously flouted the orders passed by
this Court by remaining unauthorized occupants of shops/stalls and they are
liable to pay the damages/arrears for the period they have occupied the
shops/stalls unauthorisedly till the vacant possession was delivered to the
G
applicant.
Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended
that this Court is not a proper forum to grant such prayer. According to
learned counsel, such powers can be exercised by the Estate Officer in terms
H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP 7 S.C.R.
A of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971 (hereinafter the Act). We are unable to countenance with this contention
of the respondents. The entire cause of action as recited above arose not in
a proceeding initiated under the Act but for willful violation of this Court's
Order. The fact remained that the respondents neither participated in the
B tender nor their names were included from amongst the select list and remained
unauthorized occupants depriving the highest bidder to occupy the shop/
stall thereby incurring huge loss to the exchequer by reason of their
contemptuous misbehaviour violating the order of the Highest Court of the
land would warrant to pay rent/damages at the rate quoted by the highest
bidder against their shops/stalls for their unauthorised use and occupation
C till the date they delivered vacant possession as per the chart furnished by
the learned amicus curiae.
In the result I.A.No.54 is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay
the arrears of rent/damages as per the chart within a period of two months
from today. If the amounts are not paid within the stipulated time, the petitioner
D would be entitled to recover the respective amounts from the respective
respondents by all available coercive procedures. In that event, the respondents
would be liable to pay interest at 6% per annum on the amounts payable from
the date of this order till its recovery. I.A.No.54 is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
N.J. I.A.S. disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search