The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has set aside a judgment of the Bombay High Court which had dismissed a contempt petition on the premise that the underlying court order was “capable of two interpretations.” The Apex Court held that the High Court erred in its view, affirming that the order in question contained clear and categorical directions. Consequently, the Bench restored the contempt proceedings for fresh consideration.
The central legal issue was whether the Bombay High Court was justified in dismissing a contempt petition by labeling the underlying order dated January 17, 2003, as ambiguous and capable of dual interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in this assessment. It held that the 2003 order contained clear directions for the handing over of land possession, and the dismissal of the contempt plea without examining the specific grievances of the petitioner was incorrect. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the contempt petition to the file of the High Court.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a long-standing land dispute initiated by the predecessor of the appellants, Shri Bhaskar Govind Gavate. He had filed Writ Petition No. 3412 of 1992 seeking a writ of mandamus for the completion of acquisition proceedings regarding land bearing Gat No. 78 (admeasuring 12 acres 24 gunthas) in Village Chinchavali, Taluka and District Thane. Various other reliefs, including possession, were sought.
On January 17, 2003, the Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition along with four other connected matters via a common order. This order recorded statements from the Assistant Government Pleader and the Senior Counsel for the Respondent, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Specifically, the order directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to “hand over possession of the land as it stands today which is in possession of the State Government to the Petitioners immediately.”
The order further explicitly recorded that the petitioners or their representatives were to attend the office of the SLAO on January 22, 2003, to receive possession.
Arguments and The Contempt Proceedings
The appellants alleged non-compliance with the order dated January 17, 2003. They pleaded that despite personally visiting the SLAO’s office and sending subsequent reminders (dated 24/02/2003, 5/5/2003, and legal notice on 19.06.2003), possession of Gat No. 78 was not handed over. Consequently, they filed Contempt Petition No. 315 of 2003.
In response to the contempt allegations:
- The Special Land Acquisition Officer filed an affidavit stating that possession of lands held by the State Government had been handed over on January 22, 2003. However, regarding Gat No. 78, the officer contended that an award had been passed on October 07, 1970, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and possession had been transferred to the MIDC.
- The Collector, Thane District, supported this stance, stating that since possession had been handed over to the MIDC, there was no question of handing it back to the original petitioner.
The appellants, in their rejoinder, denied the existence of the 1970 award, stating it was raised for the first time in contempt proceedings and had not been part of the record during the writ petition.
The Bombay High Court, by its judgment dated February 26, 2022, dismissed the contempt petition. The Division Bench observed that the 2003 order was “unclear and capable of two interpretations” regarding whether the statement on possession applied specifically to the appellants. Thus, it declined to exercise contempt jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, authoring the judgment for the Bench, examined the record and disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court was “not correct” in dismissing the petition on the ground that the order was unclear.
On the Clarity of the 2003 Order: The Apex Court noted that the 2003 order, when read as a whole, contained specific directions. The Court stated:
“The common order dated 17.01.2003 has to be read as a whole and when it is so read, it is clear that there is a clear and categorical direction issued by the Division Bench on 17.01.2003 in the matter of attending the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22.01.2003 and delivering possession of the lands that were in possession of the State Government on that day.”
On the Petitioner’s Specific Grievance: The Court criticised the High Court’s failure to examine the specific grievance of the original petitioner regarding Gat No. 78 in light of the averments made in the contempt petition. The Bench observed:
“Absence of any grievance by other landowners would not imply that the directions issued in favour of the original petitioner either stood complied with or were inconsequential.”
On the 1970 Award: Regarding the respondents’ claim of an existing award from 1970, the Court noted for the record:
“For the record, we may state that the award dated 07.10.1970 was not produced before this Court by the respondents.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated February 26, 2022.
- Restoration of Proceedings: The Court ordered the restoration of Contempt Petition No. 315 of 2003 before the High Court for fresh consideration.
- Clarification on Merits: The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions, including the respondents’ contentions regarding the 1970 award. These issues are to be considered by the High Court upon remand.
Case Details
- Case Title: Bhaskar Govind Gavate (Now Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10346 of 2024
- Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Shoeb Alam (Senior Advocate), Mr. Shreeyash Lalit
- Counsel for State of Maharashtra: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde
- Counsel for MIDC: Mr. Deepak Nargolkar (Senior Advocate)
