S.L. Saini v. Gyanender Bharti

1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order of the court dated 17.05.2012. Vide the said order, the DJB was directed to take necessary steps to forward their request to Govt. of NCT of Delhi for acquiring the subject parcel of land within a period of two weeks from today whereafter the Govt. of NCT of Delhi shall process the application received from the DJB in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 2014:DHC:6633

2. The aforesaid directions of the court would show that the DJB had to make a request for acquisition of land to the Government of NCT of Delhi. The land of which acquisition was requested was measuring 2 bighas 12 biswas and it was situated in Khasra Nos.590/55/1 (2-8) and 592/55/2 (0-4) in Village Jasola. The allegation of the petitioner is that is that the respondents have not taken any action pursuant to the aforesaid direction for the purpose of acquisition of land.

3. The R-3, Land Acquisition Collector (South-East), has filed its reply. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out that the request of the DJB for acquisition of the land in question was received on 16.05.2012 i.e. a day prior to the date of passing of the order dated 17.05.2012. The said request was processed and a decision was taken to have the demarcation done in respect of the land in question so that steps could be taken for the purpose of acquisition of the land. A joint survey of the land under reference was fixed on 27.08.2013, 20.09.2013, 09.10.2013, 27.12.2013 and 22.01.2014. However, the land could not be acquired as either the petitioner or the officers of the respondents other than the Land Acquisition Collector were not present at the time of demarcation and, therefore, the land could not be identified. The proceedings had to be deferred for one reason or the other. In the meantime, it is stated that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the new Act’ for short) came into operation on 01.01.2014 and the Land Acquisition Collector did not receive the order conferring the power to acquire the land in question under the new Act. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the old Act’ for short) in the meantime got lapsed and consequently the proceedings for acquisition of the land in question could not be concluded.

4. These are the reasons given by respondent No.3 for the purpose of not being able to acquire the land in question in terms of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.05.2012.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not right to contend that the respondents are guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of the court dated 17.05.2012. The disobedience of the order in the instant case is on account of certain new developments which have been occasioned on account of promulgation of the new Act of acquisition of land and on account of which the old Act ceased to be in operation.

6. It is correct that in the order dated 25.09.2014 while issuing notice to the respondents, this court had taken of the fact that since the order passed on 17.05.2012 and till the new Act coming into operation on 01.01.2014, more than one and half year had elapsed and still the respondents, despite having sufficient time, slept over the matter and failed to acquire the land. But before acquiring the land, necessarily a joint survey/identification of the land had to be carried out so that it could be found out as to whether the acquisition of the land was useful for the purpose of setting up the sewerage treatment plant. Unfortunately, the order of the court could not be brought to its logical conclusion in view of the new development which had taken place, therefore, though technically one may say that there is disobedience of the order of the court passed by the learned single Judge, but it cannot be said to be wilful. The wilful disobedience is gross disobedience or intentional disobedience by a party to lower the majesty of the court. In the instant case, it can by no stretch of imagination be stated that the disobedience on the part of the respondents in not concluding the land acquisition proceedings under the orders of the court were not wilful or gross.

7. I, therefore, feel that the issuance of notice to the respondents for initiating an action for contempt was misconceived. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed and the contempt notice is discharged. V.K. SHALI, J. DECEMBER 02, 2014 dm