TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Vinod Khanna B., Advs. For the Respondent : S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., B. Balaji, S. Arun Prakash, R. Naveen Raj, Purbitaa Mitra and K.V. Vijaya Kumar, Advs. JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Madras in Contempt Appeal No. 2 of 2017 affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2017 in and by which the Appellant-TWAD Board was directed to pay ₹ 600/- per sq. ft. to the first Respondent for the land which the Appellant-Board entered possession in 1991 with the consent of the first Respondent. 3. During the year 1991-1992, land to an extent of 86.5 cents in Survey No. 271/2A 5E - Dry Land in Walajabad Village was entered upon by the Appellant-Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) with the consent of the first Respondent-land owner for the construction of Head works and Staff quarters. In the year 1993, the Appellant-Board constructed the Head works for supply of drinking water and residential Staff quarters. Accepting the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram made in the year 1991, by an ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meeting that the case neither comes under the ambit of the Land Acquisition Act nor under 'Private Negotiation' and only the District Collector is fully competent to fix the value of the land in such cases. Accordingly, it was decided to remit the matter to the District Collector to determine the value of the land and communicate the same to the Managing Director, TWAD Board so that a fair and reasonable compensation is sanctioned to the first Respondent and to ensure compliance of the order of the High Court. 6. The District Collector accordingly held a detailed enquiry and examined various aspects of the matter and also took into consideration the prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012. After elaborate consideration, the District Collector vide proceeding dated 23.05.2016 fixed the land value at the rate of ₹ 200/- per sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the said order reads as under: 7. During the Private Negotiation meeting conducted on 09.04.2012, it was decided to for value as per the prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012. The Sub-Registrar, Walajabad recommended and reported that the guideline value was at the rate ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonable amount of compensation and accordingly, the same is fixed at ₹ 600/- per sq. ft. has been paid on 25.05.2016 together with interest, the balance amount payable per square feet is ₹ 400/-. However, the interest for the differential amount shall be calculated only at the rate of ₹ 300/- per sq. ft. from 19.05.2012 till 25.05.2016. The above direction shall be complied with by the Respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the amount, the erstwhile owner shall execute a sale deed in favour of the TWAD Board and the expenses be borne by the TWAD Boad.... 8. Being aggrieved by the above order passed in the contempt proceedings, the Appellant-Board preferred appeal before the Division Bench. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 9. We have heard learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Board and learned senior Counsel for the first Respondent and perused the impugned order and materials on record. 10. The question falling for consideration in this appeal is, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, whether the learned Single Judge was right in travelling beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and took into consideration the prevailing guideline value as on 01.04.2012. After examining the report of the Sub-Registrar, Walajabad and taking into consideration the guideline value, by proceeding dated 23.05.2016 the District Collector fixed the land value at ₹ 200/- per sq. ft. which was the guideline value as on 01.04.2012. As pointed out earlier, the total value of the land was arrived at ₹ 75,42,800/- and the interest at the rate of 12% totalling ₹ 1,11,80,723/- was paid to the first Respondent which the first Respondent received under protest. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the District Collector passed the order fixing the land value at the rate of ₹ 200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 (though the land came to be in occupation of TWAD Board way back in 1991). The first Respondent has not challenged the said compensation fixed at the rate of ₹ 200/- sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 in the manner known to law. In compliance of the order of the High Court, when the amount has been paid to the first Respondent, in our considered view, there was no disobedience or non-compliance of the order of the court to entertain the contempt petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector dated 30.11.2016, we are constrained to observe that the said proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016 fixing the land value at the rate of ₹ 500/- per sq. ft. as on 30.11.2016 was passed under the fear of contempt of court which, in our view, is liable to be quashed. In any event, when the entry into land was way back in 1990-91, the first Respondent cannot claim that compensation be paid to him on the value of the land fixed in the year 2016 as of 30.11.2016. 16. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent placed reliance upon the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General who represented the Board in the Contempt Petition No. 2626/2016 who has stated ....that the court should confirm itself to order compensation at the rate of ₹ 500/- per sq. ft. This contention does not merit acceptance. Be it noted that when the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge on 13.02.2017, no affidavit has been filed by any responsible officer that the compensation may be paid to the first Respondent at the rate of ₹ 500/- per sq. ft. Since we are quashing the order of the District Collector dated 30.11.2016, in our consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciples would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004) 13 SCC 610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613. Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that the Single Judge fell in error in entertaining the contempt petition and further erred in directing the TWAD Board to pay compensation at the rate of ₹ 600/- per sq. ft. which works out to more than ₹ 4,00,00,000/-. It is public money and having implications on the public exchequer, the public money cannot be allowed to be taken away by an individual by fling contempt petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities. The order passed by the learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench is ex-facie erroneous and liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, the impugned order of the Division Bench in Contempt Petition No. 2/2017 and the order of the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 2626/2016 are set aside and this appeal is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
