TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court is concerned primarily with : (i) whether the order passed by it has attained finality or not; (ii)whether the same is complied with or not. 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. 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. T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan[ 1995 (8) TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) 4 SCC 255), while clarifying the law operating in the field stated that where such a requisition is made on the part of a Company which a cooperative society is, Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply.This Court in its judgment invoked the principle of individualized justice directing: 22. Having thus clarified the law governing the field, we would open doors for streams of equities and discretions to enter in the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As observed earlier, we are of the view that the High Court should not have upset the notification under Section 6 of the Act as a whole and should have individualised justice vis-a-vis each writ petitioner before it, having regard to the equities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies 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, the construction to be made in the area to be allotted, as stated above, by the parties shall be in accordance with the planned development after obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities.The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 5.Allegedly, the said order was not complied with. 6. Although the Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) was not a party to the appeal, it was called upon to proceed in accordance with law as regards constructions already made in violation of the extant statute.It was furthermore directed that the constructions in the areas be allowed to be made only in terms of the development plan and upon obtaining necessary permission from the competent authorities.PRDA or other authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 had not been handed over to the Petitioner-Society together with other requisite details. For the aforementioned purpose, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar has handed over a compilation of the documents, inter alia, consisting of the Notification under Section (4) of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration under Section (6) thereof as also the judgment passed by the Patna High Court from time to time and also the judgment passed by this Court so as to ascertain the area which is required to be handed over in favour of the petitionerSociety. Mr.Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Society states that Mr. S.P.Tewary, Presid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh 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 that plot No. 220 belonging to the Pharmaceutical Cooperative Housing Construction which was the writ petitioner before the Patna High Court in Writ Petition no. 93 of 1984 was the owner of 24 acres of land.However, by mistake, apart from the land to which it was found entitled to, viz., 22 K, 4 D, it had wrongly been mentioned that it was further entitled to an area of 2.82 acres, which is evidently a mistake. 17. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded parties, on the other hand, would raise a contention that having regard to the fact that the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was set aside by the Patna High Court as far back as in the year 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : \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 Others [(1999) 6 SCC 464] wherein this Court upon considering the question from various angles directed: 82. We direct as under: 1 . Blocks 1, 2 and 4 of the underground shopping complex shall be dismantled and demolished and on these places the park shall be restored to its original shape. 2 . In Block 3 partition walls and if necessary columns in the upper basement shall be removed and this upper basement shall be converted into a parking lot. Flooring should be laid at the lower basement level built to be used as a parking lot. Ramp shall be constructed adjacent to Block 3 to go to upper and lower basement levels for the purpose of parking of vehicles. Further to make Blo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan (1995) 5 SCC 619] 24. In Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2004) 7 SCC 261], this Court held: 5. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. It was furthermore observed: 6. On the question of impossibility to carry out the direction, the views expressed in T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
