Anita Agrawal vs N.K. Xaxa

Parth Prateem Sahu, J

Petitioner has filed this contempt petition stating therein that there is deliberate and willful disobedience on the part of respondents in not complying of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 30.10.2018.

Mr. M. Pranjpe, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner had filed writ petition challenging the notification dated 04.12.2014 issued by the State Government under Section 30(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2013”), sought relief of quashment of notification dated 04.12.2014 and further to issue appropriate writ directing the respondent-authorities to recompute the compensation payable to petitioner after prescribing the appropriate factor. Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition, struck down notification dated 04.12.2014 contained in Annexure P-1 therein, issued direction to the State Government to issue a fresh notification indicating the multiplier factor and to revise and revisit the amount of compensation. Respondents have not revisited and recomputed the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner vide award dated 03.01.2017. Petitioner after passing of the judgment dated 30.10.2018 made representation on 29.11.2018 followed by the legal notice dated 09.03.2019 requesting to ensure strict compliance of the order/ direction issued by the High Court. Respondent 3 in utter disregard to the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court in writ petition on 30.10.2018, had issued memo dated 19.07.2019 stating that the land owned by petitioner and acquired in the land acquisition proceedings for Arpa Bhaisajhar Irrigation Project is land situated in urban area and the State Government’s new notification dated 02.05.2019 is for application of multiplier for the lands acquired situated in rural areas. It further mentions that application is not maintainable. Respondent 3, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, was duty bound to revisit and recompute the compensation awarded in favour of petitioner. It is contended that against the judgment dated 30.10.2018, State Government filed review petitions which were disposed of on 12.12.2019 and the purport of the order in review petitions would show that the review petitions are allowed only in part and benefit of the order extended to all such other persons whose land was acquired applying the multiplier of 1.00 was deleted. In the writ petition of the petitioner, notification dated 04.12.2014 providing application of multiplier of 1.00 has been struck down. By reading entire discussions in the order would give only one conclusion that the petitioner is entitle for application of multiplier of 2.00 as mentioned under the First Schedule of the Act of 2013. In the contempt petition also, the Court has to consider not only the compliance of the order but also the spirit in which the order is passed. It is also contended that in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013, provides for multiplier factor of 2.00 for the lands situated in rural areas. In award it is clearly mentioned that the land of petitioner is situated in rural area. The Act of 2013 is a Central Act and therefore, the State Government is not having any jurisdiction to issue any notification under Section 30(2) of the Act of 2013. Therefore, once the notification dated 04.12.2014 is quashed by this Court, the Respondents are required to revisit and recompute the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 2.00. In support of his contention, counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of E.T. Sunup vs. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association and another reported in (2004) 8 SCC 683; Lakshman Prasad Agarwal vs. Syed Mohd. Karim and another reported in (2020) 17 SCC 826; and Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273.

He submitted that Section 26, 27 and 28 of Act of 2013 deals with the procedure of determining the amount of compensation. Respondents have not complied with the specific direction to revise and revisit the award passed and recompute the amount of compensation in terms of order dated 30.10.2018.

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 would submit that after passing of the judgment dated 30.10.2018, State Government had filed applications for review of the said judgment. Review petitions filed by the State Government were allowed vide order dated 12.12.2019 wherein the Division Bench of Hon’ble Court deleted paragraph 12 of the judgment. The State Government complying with the direction issued by the Court had issued new notification with regard to application of multiplier, published in Gazette Notification dated 02.05.2019 and the directions issued by the Court in judgment dated 30.10.2018 in paragraph 11 has already been complied with in its words and spirit. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on paragraph 12 of the judgment dated 30.10.2018 is misplaced because after passing of the order dated 12.12.2019 in review petition as on date content of paragraph 12 of the order is not in existence. Respondent 3 issued memo only after issuance of new gazette notification dated 02.05.2019. New notification has been made applicable prospectively ie., from the date of its publication in the official gazette and therefore multiplier of 2.00 is applicable for the lands acquired by the State Government after 02.05.2019. He contended that there is no deliberate or willful disobedience on the part of respondents when the notification of application of multiplier of 2.00 has already been issued on 02.05.2019 by the State Government.

Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent 4 would submit, that idea and understanding of petitioner that, there is deliberate and willful disobedience on the part of respondents in not complying the direction issued by this Court in judgment dated 30.10.2018 is wrong. He submitted that after passing of the order in review petitions whereby paragraph 12 has been deleted and order dated 30.10.2018 was modified, only the direction issued in paragraph 11 was subsisting to be complied with and the State Government has already issued fresh notification indicating the multiplier factor which was made applicable from the date of publication on 02.05.2019. He also submitted that the submission of counsel for petitioner that the State Government has no jurisdiction to issue notification is per se wrong. Referring to the provisions of Section 3(b) and 3(e) of the Act of 2013, he submitted that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the State Government for the state project and therefore appropriate Government would be State Government.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record along with contempt petition.

This is contempt proceeding wherein the grievance raised by petitioner is that there is willful and deliberate disobedience on the part of respondents in not complying with the direction issued by the Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2018. In this proceeding, this Court is only required to consider whether the direction issued by the Court in order dated 30.10.2018 is deliberately and willfully not complied with?

The writ petition was filed after passing of the award by Land Acquisition Officer dated 03.01.2017 challenging the notification dated 04.12.2014 issued under Section 30(2) of the Act of 2013 which provides for application of multiplying factor of 1.00 in case of lands situated in rural areas. The Court considering the grounds raised in the writ petition allowed the writ petition and issued following directions; operative paragraphs of the order is extracted below for ready reference.

“11. Drawing analogy from the view taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, which we have quoted with due approval, Court is left with no option but to strike down the notification dated 04.12.2014 contained in Annexure P/1. A direction is issued that keeping in mind the legal position which emerges, the State Government will issue a fresh notification indicating the multiplier factors, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statue and the judgment.

It goes without saying that all awards and compensations in relation to not only these Petitioners but all such persons whose lands have been acquired and a multiplier of 1.00 has been used for calculating the compensation, the same will be required to be revised and revisited in light of the new notification, which is required to be notified by the State Government, on priority.

All the writ applications are allowed in terms of the above.”

The State Government aggrieved by the direction issued in paragraph 12 filed review petitions which came to be allowed on 12.12.2019 in review petition No. 190/2019 and other connected matters and following orders was passed:

“7. …After hearing both the sides and after going through the verdict passed by the Bench, we are of the view that the judgment will stand intact, even without 'paragraph 12' and we do not find any reason to interdict, alter or modify any of the finding or reasoning as discussed and as contained in paragraph 1 to 11. Since there was no such prayer in the writ petitions, we find it appropriate to delete 'paragraph 12' from the judgment dated 30.10.2018 in the aforesaid cases and the last paragraph numbered as '13' will stand replaced and substantiated as paragraph '12' of the judgment. It stands modified accordingly.”

Sole contention of the petitioner in this contempt petition is that the Respondent No. 3, not revised and revisited the award dated 03.01.2017 passed in land acquisition proceedings and thereby the respondent-authorities committed contempt of the lawful authority of Court. The observation for revising and revisiting stood deleted by order dated 12.12.2019 in review petitions. In the aforementioned facts of the case as on date there is no order or observation for revising or revisiting the compensation awarded. On the date of considering representation of petitioner by Respondent No. 3, new notification was published on 02.05.2019 as ordered in judgment dated 30.10.2018 and the new multiplier factor is made applicable from the date of notification.

The consideration of representation by Respondent No. 3 on 19.07.2019 was after publication of the new notification. Factor of ‘2’ by which market value is to be multiplied is made applicable from the date of publication ie., 02.05.2019. Even if on the date of consideration of representation deleted paragraph 12 was there, the award was to revisit or to be recomputed in the light of new notification.

In the aforementioned facts of the case, there was no occasion for Respondent No. 3 to revise or revisit the compensation awarded in the light of new notification which was published on 02.05.2019 and came in force from the date of publication, we do not find any willful or deliberate disobedience on the part of Respondent No. 3 in not revising or revisiting the award of compensation dated 03.01.2017.

The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are distinguishable on facts as on date the only direction to be complied with for the State Government is to issue a fresh notification which is already been issued.

In the result, contempt petition fails and it is hereby dismissed accordingly.