Contempt of Court — Common Order Covering Multiple Writ Petitions — Effect — Individual Grievance Maintainable Where a common order covers several writ petitions and issues operative directions in favour of “the petitioners”, absence of grievance by some landowners does not mean that the order is unclear or that directions in favour of a particular petitioner stand complied with or have become inconsequential. Held, the common order dated 17-01-2003 must be read as applying to all writ petitioners, including the present appellant (W.P. No. 3412/1992). The High Court was required to consider the specific grievance of non-compliance raised by this petitioner on its own merits. (Paras 2, 9–10, 12) 3

1. Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Non-compliance with Writ Directions — Alleged Ambiguity of Earlier Order — Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction

Held, the High Court erred in dismissing a contempt petition on the ground that the earlier writ order was “unclear” or “capable of two interpretations” when, read as a whole, the common order dated 17-01-2003 contained clear and categorical operative directions:

• The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) was directed to hand over possession of lands “as they stand today” which were in possession of the State Government to the petitioners on 22-01-2003;

• MIDC was to hand over unutilised land to the SLAO by 20-01-2003 for delivery to petitioners on 22-01-2003;

• Compensation was to be paid for land retained/used for public purpose until acquisition was completed.

In such a situation, the contempt court cannot decline to examine compliance merely by calling the earlier order ambiguous; it must test, on the record, whether the directions were obeyed. (Paras 2, 7–10)

2. Contempt of Court — Common Order Covering Multiple Writ Petitions — Effect — Individual Grievance Maintainable

Where a common order covers several writ petitions and issues operative directions in favour of “the petitioners”, absence of grievance by some landowners does not mean that the order is unclear or that directions in favour of a particular petitioner stand complied with or have become inconsequential.

Held, the common order dated 17-01-2003 must be read as applying to all writ petitioners, including the present appellant (W.P. No. 3412/1992). The High Court was required to consider the specific grievance of non-compliance raised by this petitioner on its own merits. (Paras 2, 9–10, 12)

3. Land Acquisition — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Prior Award Pleaded for the First Time in Contempt Proceedings — Duty of Court to Scrutinise Record

The State/SLAO sought to justify non-delivery of possession of land from Gat No. 78 by pleading that:

• An award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been passed on 07-10-1970;

• Compensation had been paid;

• Possession had been handed over to MIDC;

• Therefore, land could not be handed back to the petitioner.

Pursuant to earlier order in contempt, the State was directed to produce the award/record. Held, while examining civil contempt, the Court must look into the actual record to see whether such assertions justify non-compliance. The High Court’s failure to advert to or scrutinise the record, despite having earlier directed its production, vitiated its dismissal of the contempt petition. (Paras 4–6, 8, 10–11)

4. Contempt — Interpretation of Earlier Order — Approach of Contempt Court

Held, in contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot rewrite or dilute the earlier order on the pretext of ambiguity where:

• The operative portion is specific (date, authority, and nature of action: handing over possession/payment of compensation); and

• The order records statements of counsel and SLAO in the presence of the officer.

The proper question is whether the clear directions were obeyed; not whether some alternative interpretation can be imagined to avoid contempt scrutiny. (Paras 2, 8–10)

5. Remand — Contempt Petition — Scope of Supreme Court Interference

Considering that:

• The High Court had refused to examine contempt on merits relying only on alleged ambiguity, and

• The award dated 07-10-1970 was not produced before the Supreme Court,

Held, the appropriate course is to set aside the impugned order and remand Contempt Petition No. 315/2003 for fresh consideration on merits in light of the 17-01-2003 order and the observations of the Supreme Court, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate culpability or on the correctness of State/MIDC’s factual assertions. (Paras 10–11)

Result: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 26-02-2022 in Contempt Petition No. 315/2003 set aside; contempt proceedings restored for fresh adjudication. (Para 11)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW IN THE COURT’S VIEW

I. Background Facts

1. Original Writ Proceedings (W.P. No. 3412/1992)

   • The predecessor of the appellants (Bhaskar Govind Gavate) filed a writ petition seeking:

     • Completion of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of Gat No. 78 (12 acres 24 gunthas);

     • Compensation from 1964 till award;

     • Handing back possession of unutilised land.

   • Four similarly placed landowners filed parallel writ petitions.

2. Common Order dated 17-01-2003

   • A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Lodha & Nishita Mhatre, JJ.) disposed of the five writ petitions by a common oral judgment. Crucial features:

     • State (through SLAO) stated it had “no objection” to handing over possession of land in State’s possession as it stood on that date.

     • MIDC (Respondent No. 5) stated that:

       • Land in use for public purpose and for which acquisition was initiated: compensation would be paid until acquisition completed, either mutually agreed or determined by competent forum;

       • Unutilised land not yet handed back to SLAO would be handed over to SLAO by 20-01-2003.

     • Operative directions:

       • Petitioners or their representatives to attend office of SLAO on 22-01-2003;

       • SLAO to deliver possession of land in State’s possession “as it stands today” to petitioners;

       • MIDC to hand over unutilised land to SLAO by 20-01-2003 for onward delivery to petitioners on 22-01-2003;

       • Liberty to petitioners to pursue remedies for compensation against State/MIDC for loss caused by non-restoration of land post 1976 Supreme Court judgment.

3. Alleged Non-Compliance — Contempt Petition No. 315/2003

   • The original petitioner alleged that despite visiting SLAO and sending multiple letters and a legal notice, possession of Gat No. 78 had not been handed over.

   • He asserted that about 2 acres 15 gunthas were under pipeline and service road for MIDC; some compensation was paid for 3–4 years only, and then stopped.

   • He pleaded deliberate and wilful disobedience of the 17-01-2003 order.

4. Respondents’ Defence in Contempt

   • SLAO:

     • Claimed that possession of lands “that were with the State Government” was handed over to petitioners on 22-01-2003, with possession receipt.

     • As regards Gat No. 78: award passed on 07-10-1970 under the 1894 Act; compensation paid; possession handed over to MIDC — hence no contempt.

   • Collector, Thane:

     • Supported SLAO’s version; reiterated award and prior transfer to MIDC; asserted full compliance and stated there was “no question” of handing possession back.

   • MIDC:

     • Denied disobedience; maintained that land was already in MIDC possession pursuant to acquisition.

5. Petitioner’s Rejoinders

   • Denied existence of award or at least its legal effect;

   • Pointed out that award was never produced or pressed during writ proceedings; raised for the first time in contempt;

   • Persisted that no possession of Gat No. 78 (12 acres 22 gunthas) was handed over as directed.

6. Interim Step in High Court

   • On 08-07-2009, the High Court directed production of the original record, including award copy, for perusal.

II. High Court’s Contempt Decision (Impugned)

• The Division Bench ultimately dismissed the contempt petition (judgment dated 26-02-2022) holding:

  • The 17-01-2003 order was unclear and “capable of two interpretations”;

  • Statements of SLAO/MIDC regarding handing over possession or paying compensation were “ambiguous”;

  • It was not possible to interpret the order in the manner the petitioner contended, so contempt jurisdiction ought not be exercised.

The High Court did not go into the factual question whether, in fact, possession was delivered or compensation paid as per the directions, nor did it analyse the record directed to be produced earlier.

III. Supreme Court’s Legal Assessment

1. Nature of the 17-01-2003 Order

The Supreme Court analysed:

• The prayers in W.P. No. 3412/1992 (completion of acquisition, compensation, restoration of unutilised land), and

• The entire text of the common order of 17-01-2003.

It concluded:

• The statements recorded and directions issued in the order were not confined to some petitioners only; they related to all five writ petitioners, including the present appellant’s predecessor.

• The operative directions regarding attending SLAO’s office on 22-01-2003 and delivery of possession by SLAO and MIDC were “clear and categorical”, not ambiguous.

2. High Court’s Error in Treating Order as Ambiguous

The Supreme Court held the High Court erred in:

• Focusing on perceived ambiguity in statements instead of the clear operative portion;

• Suggesting that it was uncertain whether statements/directions pertained to the original petitioner;

• Ignoring the specific grievance in the contempt petition (paras 8–10) that no possession of Gat No. 78 was handed over;

• Not examining compliance in the light of evidence/records—even after having directed production of award/record in 2009.

The correct approach, in the Supreme Court’s view, was:

• To read the common order as a whole,

• Treat the directions as extending to all petitioners, and

• Scrutinise, on the produced records, whether they had been complied with vis-à-vis this particular petitioner.

3. Common Order and Individual Grievances

The Court clarified an important point of contempt practice:

• The fact that other landowners/petitioners did not complain or move for contempt does not dilute either the clarity or enforceability of the directions in favour of the present petitioner.

• Contempt court had to treat his grievance independently and examine whether, as regards him, there was compliance.

4. Award and MIDC Possession

The Court noted:

• Respondents claimed an award dated 07-10-1970 and prior transfer of possession to MIDC.

• That award was not produced before the Supreme Court.

• In any event, because the case was being remanded, the Supreme Court declined to pronounce on the merits of whether that award legally justified non-compliance with the 2003 writ order.

This respects the limited scope of appeal in contempt matters and preserves the High Court’s primary role in fact-finding within contempt jurisdiction.

IV. Result and Directions

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dismissing the contempt petition;

• Restored Contempt Petition No. 315/2003 to the High Court’s file;

• Directed fresh consideration on merits “in the light of the observations made hereinabove”;

• Clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of rival contentions regarding award, acquisition, or actual possession — those issues are open for the High Court to decide.

Thus, the Court’s view is not that contempt has been committed, but that the High Court must properly decide that question instead of avoiding it by recharacterising a clear order as “ambiguous”.