Allahabad High Court: In a contempt application filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 filed for punishing the opposite party for not complying the order of writ Court dated 19-12-2016, wherein the Court had found that as certain constructions were standing over the land which were acquired way back in the year 1990 after incurring huge amount in construction, it would be appropriate to award compensation to the applicants on double market price and in case the compensation was not paid then the land was to revert back to the applicants after construction was removed, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. has reiterated that questions of facts cannot be decided in contempt proceedings and said that applicants are only entitled for compensation for the land over which road has been constructed to the extent of 2520 square meter and remaining land which is being reverted by the authorities to the extent of 6116 square meter be taken back by them. Thus, dismissed the contempt petition against New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (‘NOIDA’) CEO and Gautam Budh Nagar District Magistrate
In the instant case NOIDA authority had written to the District Magistrate for getting the land identified and allocated and it was found that the area measuring 6116 square meter was not used for construction of bus terminal nor for construction of road and only an area of 2520 square meter land was used for construction of road which entitled the applicants for compensation. Both the State Government and NOIDA authority are ready to pay compensation for land measuring 2520 square meters which has been utilized for construction of public roads and are ready to hand over 6116 square meters of land which is lying vacant. The applicants are not ready to take back the land and are insisting on a compensation amount and that too at the commercial market rate and not at the agricultural rate.
The Court noted that the order of the Writ Court was only to the extent to pay the compensation on double market price and in case it was not paid, the land was to be returned to the applicants after removing the construction. Here the authorities have come with a case that 6116 square meter of land is still lying vacant and they are ready to hand over the possession of the said land, and 2520 square meter of land has been used for construction of road for which compensation is being paid to the applicants, which they are refusing.
Further, after placing reliance on U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Assn., (2022) 1 SCC 101, the Court said that while exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot decide the disputed question of facts.
The Court said that as the compensation has already been assessed by the authorities to the tune of Rs. 1,33,05,600/-, no question arises for interfering in the matter for awarding higher compensation, as the applicants have remedy under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to approach the authority concerned for enhancement of the compensation amount.
The Court said that the said plot is having a number of co-tenure holders and there having been no partition between the co-tenure holders, the applicants cannot stick to a piece of land, as the sale deed did not mention the exact portion of the plot for which it was executed in favour of the applicants. As the applicants have only 8636 square meters of land in a huge chunk of plot, they cannot claim that the bus terminal has been constructed over their part of the land. Once the authorities have found that the land of the applicants has been used to the extent of 2520 square meters for construction of road, the said fact cannot be disbelieved, and the contempt application filed by the applicants is not maintainable.
As per the Court there is no deliberate disobedience of the order of Writ Court as contemplated under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to invite the wrath of this Court for punishing the opposite party for not complying with the said orders. The officers of the NOIDA authority are not in defiance of the order of the Writ Court and in fact they have calculated the compensation amount and are ready to pay the same which is deposited in a nationalised bank. Further, the land which has not been used is being returned to the applicants.
[Manorama Kuchhal v. Brijesh Narain Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine All 500, Order dated 21-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Applicant: Senior Advocate Manish Goyal, Advocate Priyanka Midha, Advocate Ram M. Kaushik, Advocate Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party: Advocate Anuj Srivastava, Advocate Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Advocate Ramendra Pratap Singh, Advocate Ravindra Kumar, Advocate Tanmay Sadh, Advocate Vijay Kumar Dixit
