Hyderabad Industries Ltd. vs Mrs. Surina Rajan, Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—Bureaucratic harassment and blatant disregard of the directions of this Court are what stand out in such bold relief here.

To give the factual background, about 55 acres of land owned by the petitioners at Ballabgarh were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act An area of 14 Kanals and 13 Marlas, out of the land acquired was subsequently released from acquisition. This happened several years ago The petitioners being the owners thereof were entitled to its return but this was stalled by the respondents by the return of this land being made conditional upon the petitioners paying external development charges, not merely for the 14 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land which had been released from acquisition but for the entire land acquired i.e. about 55 acres The petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 81,000/- odd (though under protest) towards external development charges which covers such expenses for the said 14 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land but contested their liability to pay such charges of the entire land acquired. The unrelenting stance of the respondents, in this behalf, eventually impelled them to move this Court in writ proceedings to challenge this demand. This matter is now pending before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4739 of 1990

The petitioners thereafter moved this Court again in Civil Writ Petition 1934 of 1992 to challenge the refusal of the respondents to hand back the said 14 Kanals and 13 Marlas of the land to them. The Division Bench by its order of July 30, 1992, held that withholding of the 14 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land from their rightful owners was devoid of any legal cover or authority and the condition imposed upon the petitioners for its return namely payment of external development charges for the entire land was quashed. The respondents were consequently directed to return the land to the petitioners forthwith. It is non compliance of this direction that led to the filing of the present petition under the Contempt of Courts Act against Mrs. Surina Rajan and Shri Manik Sonawana, the Administrator and the Chief Administrator respectively to the Haryana Urban Development Authority.

A reference to the record shows that on September 29, 1992, a request was made by the petitioners to the Administratrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority for the return of their land (Annexure P-2). This was repeated in their further communications of October 13, 1992 and October 22, 1992 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) but to no avail. It is only thereafter that the present petition came to be filed on November 5, 1992.

On January 8, 1993 when, after notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel, it was discovered that even till that date the directions to this Court regarding the return of 14 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land to the petitioner had not been complied with. The matter was accordingly adjourned to a fortnight later to enable Counsel for the respondents to report compliance with the said directions. Such compliance was however, again found wanting even on the next date of hearing and the counsel for the respondents sought another adjournment of 10 to 15 days for ensuring such compliance. The matter was thereupon adjourned to January 29, 1993, with the further direction to the respondents to appear in Court in person and also to file a detailed reply to account for non-compliance with the directions of the Court.

On January 29, 1993, counsel for the respondents sought to show an order to the effect that the land in question had been released to their signing the agreement mentioned therein. On its being pointed out that as per the order of this Court, the return of the land to the petitioners was not conditional upon their signing any agreement, counsel for the respondents sought further adjournment. It is only thereafter that an order to the effect that th land has been released to the petitioner was passed which has now been placed on record.

Turning to the explanation for non-compliance with the directions of this Court, that of Mrs. Surina Rajan, Administrator of the Haryana Urban Development Authority is to the effect that as she was bound by the orders of the Chief Administrator she awaited his orders, since a SLP had been filed in the Supreme Court against the orders of this Court of July 30, 1992 in Civil Writ Petition 1934 of 1992. Now that SLP had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 18, 1993. the Chief Administrator had ordered that the land of the petitioners stands released.

The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority Mr. Manik Sonawane, on his part, put forth the plea that the certified copy or the order of this Court of July 30, 1992 was received on August 23, 1992. The file was thereafter put up before him with the recommendation that a SLP be filed against the order of this Court. He agreed with this recommendation and issued directions on September 6, 1992 for the filing of the SLP The papers were then handed over to their counsel, who filed the SLP on November 11, 1992. Further, keeping in view the imperative directions of this Court, the Standing Counsel was requested to get the hearing of the SLP expedited. This Hon''ble Supreme Court, however, dismissed the SLP on January 18, 1993 and then after completing the various official formalities from the concerned quarters, orders for the release of the land had been passed subject to the agreement submitted by the petitioners in compliance with the orders of this Court. The petitioners, it is said, were informed accordingly, by the letter of January 25, 1993.

In dealing with this matter, it must be appreciated that the mere filing of an appeal or even the pendency of it and much less, just the comtemplation of filing it, constitutes no ground or jurisdiction for non-compliance with the directions of the Court. It follows, therefore, that one who fails or declines to carry out the orders of the Court, for any such reason, clearly does so at the peril of being proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act--And this is precisely the situation that the respondents are senior civil servants holding responsible posts and it can by no means be assumed that they did not understand the imperative nature of the direction contained in the order of this Court of July 30, 1992 or that the mere contemplation of filing of an appeal or even its subsequent filing constituted any stay or bar to such direction being complied with. Indeed, the manner in which both these respondents have chosen to disregard the clear and explicit direction of this Court, regarding the return of the land released from acquisition to the petitioner, cannot but invite strong adverse comment and render them liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the respondent sought to press in aid what he termed as their "unqualified apology" which is in these terms :--

"That the deponent has full respect for the orders of this Hon''ble Court and had/has no intention of disobeying any direction of this Hon''ble Court. However, if this Hon''ble Court comes to the conclusion that any technical contempt has been committed of the order of this Hon''ble Court, the deponent tenders unqualified apology for the same.

It will be seen that even here the expression that the respondents have chosen to use is, "any technical contempt" which eloquently reveals what regard and respect they have for the directions of this Court.

Having regard to the circumstances as narrated, there can be no manner of doubt that both the respondents have displayed callous disregard of the orders of this Court and thereby render themselves liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. They are both consequently hereby convicted u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and are sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and in addition Mrs. Surina Rajan is sentenced to payment of Rs. 1000/- as fine, in default of payment of which she shall undergo one month''s simple imprisonment, while the other respondent Mr. Manik Sonawane is sentenced to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as fine in default of payment of which he shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. The respondents shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs of this petition, rupees 1,000/- being payabe by respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- by respondent No. 2. This petition is disposed of in these terms.