SUDHA BHALLA ALIAS SUDHA PUNCHI & ORS.   [Petitioner(s)]  Vs.  RAKESH KUMAR SINGH & ORS.   [ Respondent(s)]

(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19839 OF 2017)

(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ.)

Facts: The contempt order was passed in the background that on 11th May, 2023, when the Civil Appeal No. 19839 of 2017 was listed before this Court, a statement made by Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants therein that in view of the increase in price, the Ghaziabad Development Authority may not be in a position to pay the compensation, as directed by the High Court. On the basis of the said statement, this Court had recorded that the GDA was free to release the land as it was not in a position to pay the compensation. After the aforesaid order was passed, an award came to be declared on 30th December, 2023. The court had issued the order dated 05th February, 2024, directing personal presence of the contemners since the court was, prima facie, of the view that passing of the award after making a statement before this Court that the land is not required, was to mislead the Court. It is this order which is challenged in this court.

Issue: Whether the respondents had deliberately or will fully acted in such a manner which would amount to the disobedience of the orders passed by this Court?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:

Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel, representing the petitioners urged that the award allegedly passed by the authorities on 30th December, 2023 is nothing but an eyewash and is in total disregard to the statement made before this Court. He urged that neither was any notice was given to the petitioners before the issuance of the award nor were the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2013 which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014 followed and thus, the award is nothing but a nullity in the eyes of law. He rather contended that looking to the facts preceding the issuance of the award, it is apparent that the award has been passed in a clandestine manner by antedating the proceedings.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, by passing an award, the petitioners have been granted relief which was prayed for before the High Court. It is submitted that as per the contention raised before the High Court, the petitioners were interested in getting compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2013’) which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, and the relief sought for has been granted as per the award dated 30th December, 2023. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, further submitted that initially the GDA was under an erroneous belief that the land was a residential land and as such the compensation was determined to the tune of Rs. 407 crores. It was, however, subsequently realized that the land was not a residential land but was agricultural in nature and, therefore, GDA was in a position to pay the compensation. It was thus contended that the respondents have not violated any order of this Court and hence they deserve to be discharged from the contempt notice.

Held: The court disposed off the present petition and held that, “since we find that technically there is no contempt in the matter, we leave all these questions open to be decided by the competent authorities at the appropriate stage. We do not propose to observe anything more than that. As pointed out by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, the petitioners would be entitled to take out proceedings if they are aggrieved by the adequacy of the compensation. We only observe that taking into consideration that the land of the petitioners was under the sword of acquisition for almost two decades and that some part of the delay is also attributable to the Court inasmuch as the proceedings were pending for last so many years, the authorities or the Court, before whom the proceedings post award would be initiated, would take up the matter and decide the same expeditiously. We also clarify that we are not adjudicating on the validity of the award. The petitioners would always be at liberty to raise all permissible challenges to the award and associated proceedings in accordance with law, which would be considered on its own merits.”