9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 5A of the Act. Overruling the said objection, the proceedings were continued. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued followed by an award. In the said proceedings, 59.94 acres of land was acquired. Petitioner - Society deposited the entire amount of compensation. Several writ applications came to be filed before the Patna High Court questioning the said proceedings. 3.The said writ petitions were allowed by the High Court stating: "40. For the reasons aforementioned in considered opinion, all the writ applications are fit to be allowed and the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide notification dated 16/18.03.1983 as contained in Annexure - 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 2755 of 1988 is fit to be quashed. The case, however, has to be remitted to the respondents State Government for further proceeding in the matter of inquiry under Section 40 of the Act and Rule 4 of the aforementioned Rules and under the Act for inquiry under Section 5A of the Act until objections filed by the petitioners in accordance with law." 4.However, on an appeal preferred thereagainst, this Court in Shyam Nandan Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar and others (since reported in (1993) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Grih Nirman Samiti preferred an appeal thereagainst before this Court upon obtaining special leave being Civil Appeal No. 1357 of 2003.By a judgment and order dated 18.08.2004, this Court further released 17.68 acres of land in favour of various contenders directing: "The remaining available land, shall be allotted to the Bihar State Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society for whose benefit the acquisition of land was made. This Society is liable to pay compensation amount as may be determined by competent authorities/ courts in respect of the land to be allotted to them as stated above. The Collector or the authorized officer shall complete the acquisition proceedings in all respects and hand over possession to the parties in terms afore-stated within a period of four months from today. The impugned order of the High Court shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.In all ther respects, the impugned order shall remain undisturbed. This order does not preclude the competent authority (Patna Regional Development Authority) to proceed in accordance with law with regard to the constructions already made, if they are not in accordance with law.Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd every direction of this Court. However, when the matter came up before this Court on 28.08.2006, this Court recorded: "Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the State made statement at the bar that responsible officer of the concerned department would be writing a letter to the petitioner offering certain lands to him which are lying vacant.Let it be so done within two weeks from today. It may be mentioned that in the letter, area of land which will be offered, shall also be enumerated." However, the said assurance allegedly was also not acted upon. On 2/3.02.2007, possession of an area of 5.91775 acres of land was handed over to the petitioner - society. A controversy, however, was raised that the petitioner - society was only entitled to 18.8124 acres of land. 11. We may notice that keeping in view the controversy between the parties, a survey was directed to be conducted by an order dated 30.08.2007 stating: "Mr. Ashok Dubey, Executive Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation together with Mr.Rajesh Kumar, ADLAO shall visit the lands in question and, if necessary, appoint a competent surveyor to find out the extent of the lands in respect of which possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the land which could be handed over the petitioner society.These are plot nos. 108, 173, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 201, 204, 205, 206, 209, 216, 217, 221, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 234, 237, 238, 240 and 246.Out of these plots, an area of 7.22019 acres can be carved out and handed over to the petitioner society, in full compliance of the directions of this Hon'ble Court." 13. From a perusal of the said survey report, it is evident that 25.4871 acres of land were to be handed over to the petitioner.Such lands were to be handed over upon demolition of the structures of the plot numbers mentioned in paragraph 12 thereof.Tidy nature of the development of the area is also accepted. 14. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that the aforementioned survey report would solve the entire dispute and if the same is acted upon, no dis-satisfaction would be caused to any of the parties. 15. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, would draw our attention to Sr. No. 4 of the Chart contained in the report which reads as under: 16. The learned counsel contends tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le for planned development of the city.For the said purpose, it was under a statutory obligation to grant sanction of plans for construction of buildings.If somebody has made constructions without obtaining any sanction, he must face the consequences therefor. It is, having regard to the purport and object for which such Acts are enacted, idle to contend that no action should be taken against them only because they have constructed their houses long back.Such statutes also subserve promotion and protection of ecology which is one of the foremost needs of the society. In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 434, this Court observed: "\005The development of the doctrine of sustainable development indeed is a welcome feature but while emphasizing the need of ecological impact, a delicate balance between it and the necessity for development must be struck.Whereas it is not possible to ignore inter-generational interest, it is also not possible to ignore the dire need which the society urgently requires." Almost a similar question came up for consideration before this Court in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th or not. 22. While exercising the said jurisdiction this court does not intend to reopen the issues which could have been raised in the original proceeding nor shall it embark upon other questions including the plea of equities which could fall for consideration only in the original proceedings.The court is not concerned with as to whether the original order was right or wrong.The court must not take a different view or traverse beyond the same.It cannot ordinarily give an additional direction or delete a direction issued.In short, it will not do anything which would amount to exercise of its review jurisdiction.[See Director of Education, Uttaranchal and others v. Ved Prakash Joshi and others AIR 2005 SC 3200 and K.G. Derasari and Another v. Union of India and Others (2001) 10 SCC 496]. 23. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 129 of the Constitution of India must strive to give effect to the directions issued by this Court.When the claim of the parties had been adjudicated upon and has attained finality, it is not open for any party to go behind the said orders and seek to take away and/ or truncate the effect thereof.[See T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
