Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Appellant: A.Pulla Reddy, Advocate.
Judges
  • C.V.N Sastri, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Appellant: A.Pulla Reddy, Advocate.
Judges
  • C.V.N Sastri, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Legal Opinion Summary: C.V.N. Sastri, J. — Contempt Proceeding (Reference to Division Bench)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner claimed ownership of premises bearing Municipal No. 5-6-386 (230 sq. yards) at Fathesultan Lane, Hyderabad. She filed W.P. No. 18992 of 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to issue a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and to pass an award after due enquiry. The writ petition was disposed of on 23-3-1995, with directions to issue a fresh notification under Section 4(1) and to pass an award after enquiry within six months of receipt of the order.

Pursuant to that order, the second respondent (Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Land Acquisition), Kachiguda) issued a Section 4(1) notification and a Section 6 declaration published in the Gazette on 17-6-1995. After enquiry, the second respondent prepared a draft award and purportedly forwarded it to the Collector (first respondent) for approval on 26-10-1995. Alleging undue delay and that compensation was not paid within nine months of the High Court order, the petitioner filed a contempt petition on 21-12-1995.

The petitioner alleged that an earlier award dated 26-10-1995 fixed compensation at Rs. 34,36,468/-, but that respondents later passed an award dated 30-12-1995 reducing the compensation to Rs. 7,72,537/- without notice; she produced xerox copies of the alleged 26-10-1995 award and an accompanying letter in support.

Respondents countered that the initial draft dated 26-10-1995 was revised after collection of statistics, that a revised draft (dated 1-11-1995) was approved by the Joint Collector on 30-12-1995 for Rs. 7,72,557/-, and communicated to the petitioner under Section 12(2) on 6-1-1996. They contended that the 26-10-1995 document was not a final award because awards require prior approval of the competent authority under the proviso to Section 11(1) and G.O.Ms No. 1843 Revenue (K) Dept. (13-12-1984).

Two questions were framed before the Single Judge: (1) whether once an award is passed by the second respondent (authorized officer) it is open to the first respondent to change, modify or pass a fresh award; and (2) whether the first respondent's action constituted proper compliance with this Court's order dated 23-3-1995. The Single Judge felt that a further question arose as to whether a contempt court can examine those questions and referred the matter to a Division Bench on 5-7-1996.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. When an award is passed by the second respondent (an authorised officer), is it open to the first respondent (Collector) to change, modify or pass a fresh award?
  2. Whether the action of the first respondent in relation to the award(s) amounts to proper compliance with the High Court's order dated 23-3-1995?
  3. Whether a contempt proceeding permits the court to re-examine and adjudicate on the correctness of the administrative action (i.e., subsequent awards) taken pursuant to the court's directions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner asserted that a draft/final award dated 26-10-1995 fixed compensation at Rs. 34,36,468/- and that respondents subsequently passed an award dated 30-12-1995 reducing compensation to Rs. 7,72,537/- without notice to her.
  • She alleged wilful disobedience of the High Court's order (23-3-1995) by the respondents and relied on documentary proofs (xerox copies of the alleged 26-10-1995 award and a covering letter) to show the earlier award was final and that the later award was illegal, void and without jurisdiction.

Respondents' Arguments

  • Respondents contended that the document of 26-10-1995 was only an initial draft that was revised; the revised draft (dated 1-11-1995) was approved by the competent authority (Joint Collector) on 30-12-1995 for Rs. 7,72,557/- and communicated to the petitioner under Section 12(2) on 6-1-1996.
  • They asserted that under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, read with G.O.Ms No. 1843 (13-12-1984), no award can be made without the previous approval of the appropriate government or an authorised officer (District Collector/Joint Collector/Special Collector as specified), and therefore the second respondent could not pass a final award without that approval.
  • Respondents further alleged that the petitioner had obtained copies of the draft by fraudulent means and that disciplinary action was being taken against involved employees.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291 Principle that once the Government passes an order on the basis of directions issued by a court, that creates a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to challenge the governmental action in an appropriate forum; correctness of such governmental action is not to be reviewed in a contempt proceeding. The court relied on this authority to hold that the correctness of the award(s) issued after the High Court's directions could not be examined in the contempt petition; the petitioner must pursue appropriate proceedings (including reference under Section 18) to challenge the award.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in several steps, based strictly on the material before it:

  1. Statutory framework: The court noted the proviso to Section 11(1) (inserted by Act 68 of 1984) which requires previous approval of the appropriate government or an authorised officer before the Collector can make an award. In exercise of that power the State issued G.O.Ms No. 1843 (13-12-1984), authorising District Collectors, Joint Collectors and Special Collectors to accord approval to awards.
  2. Effect on the second respondent's competence: From the statutory proviso and the G.O., the court concluded that the second respondent had no power to make a final award without the previous approval of the competent authority specified in the Government Order.
  3. Examination of the file: The court perused the departmental file produced by the Government Pleader. The file did not show approval of any award dated 26-10-1995. Instead, the record disclosed: (a) an errata to the Section 4(1) notification published on 28-10-1995; (b) a revised draft award prepared on 1-11-1995; (c) approval by the Joint Collector on 30-12-1995; and (d) communication to the petitioner with a Section 12(2) notice on 6-1-1996.
  4. On that basis, the court found it difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that the 26-10-1995 instrument was a final award. The court observed that the draft of 26-10-1995, if it existed as a final award, was not supported by approval entries in the file.
  5. Scope of contempt proceedings: Relying on J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, the court held that when the Government or its officers act pursuant to court directions, any complaint about the correctness of that administrative action gives rise to a fresh cause of action which must be pursued in an appropriate forum, and cannot be reviewed in a contempt proceeding. The court thus considered it unnecessary to adjudicate the competing contentions about the relative validity of the 26-10-1995 and 30-12-1995 documents in the contempt petition.
  6. Discrepancies and suspicion: The court noted a number of discrepancies and troubling particulars in the counter-affidavits and the file (for example: inconsistent affidavits as to who approved the award, differing dates, lack of original of the alleged 26-10-1995 award, corrections of dates on documents, and valuation inconsistencies). These discrepancies gave rise to suspicion that records might have been doctored, and they reflected poorly on the officials involved.
  7. Restraint due to legal limits: Despite these irregularities, the court declined to probe further into possible record-doctoring within the contempt proceeding because of the categorical averments in the petitioner's affidavit and the settled legal position (supplied by the cited precedent) limiting the scope of contempt proceedings.
  8. Practical relief and directions: In view of the above, the court allowed the petitioner a limited, practical remedy: one month's time from the date of the order to file objections to the award dated 30-12-1995 and to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also permitted the petitioner to accept the compensation payable under the 30-12-1995 award without prejudice to her right to seek a Section 18 reference within that one-month period.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSAL OF CONTEMPT PETITION: The contempt petition was disposed of by the court with directions summarized below.

Direct consequences and implications:

  • The court declined to hold respondents guilty of contempt or to take further punitive steps in this proceeding.
  • The petitioner was granted one month's time from the date of the order to file objections to the award dated 30-12-1995 and to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
  • The petitioner was permitted to receive the compensation under the 30-12-1995 award without prejudice to her right to seek a Section 18 reference within the prescribed time.
  • The court recorded its concern about discrepancies, prevarications in affidavits and possible doctored records, but did not convert those findings into punitive action in this contempt proceeding because the scope of contempt proceedings, as articulated in J.S. Parihar, precluded review of the administrative action in that forum.
  • No order as to costs was made.

The court did not set any new legal precedent; it applied existing statutory provisions (proviso to Section 11(1) and G.O.Ms No. 1843) and precedent (J.S. Parihar) to confine the remedy to appropriate statutory and civil routes (e.g., Section 18 reference) rather than by contempt proceedings.

Show full summary ...

    Smt. Rabia Bee Khaja Bee v. R. Subrahmanyam, Ias, Collector Hyderabad & Anr.

    C.V.N Sastri, J.:— This contempt case has come to us on an order of reference dated 5-7-1996 made by our learned Brother Mr. Justice Motilal B. Naik who felt that the case involves substantial questions of law and it is, therefore, desirable to place it before a Division Bench. The facts leading to the contempt case are as follows:

    The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of a premises bearing Municipal No. 5-6-386 admeasuring 230 sq. yards situated at Fathesultan Lane (Chergali Lane of Hyderabad, which was acquired by the respondents along with some other lands for the purpose of allotment to hut-dwellers belonging to S.Cs, B.Cs, and other weaker sections, filed W.P No. 18992 of 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the said premises and pass award after due enquiry. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23-3-1995 directing the respondents to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the said premises and pass award after due enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

    2. Pursuant to the said directions, the second respondent, Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Land Acquisition), Kachiguda, issued notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which were published in the Gazette dated 17-6-1995. After completing the award enquiry, the second respondent prepared a draft award and forwarded the same to the first respondent i.e, the Collector, Hyderabad, for approval on 26-10-1995. Alleging that the first respondent did not finalise the matter and no compensation was paid to her even after the lapse of 9 months from the date of the High Court's order, the petitioner filed the above contempt case on 21-12-1995 praying to take action against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the court's order dated 23-3-1995. It is the case of the petitioner that, after the contempt case was filed, the respondents have changed the earlier award dated 26-10-1995 whereunder the compensation payable to her was fixed at Rs. 34,36,468/- and passed another award dated 30-12-1995 reducing the compensation to Rs. 7,72,537/- without any notice to the petitioner and that the second award dated 30-12-1995 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and that it amounts to a deliberate and wilful violation of the order passed in the writ petition. In proof of the said allegations, the petitioner produced a xerox copy of the alleged original award dated 26-10-1995 and also a xerox copy of the letter dated 26-10-1995 addressed by the second respondent to the first respondent in that behalf.

    3. The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that though a draft award was initially prepared by the second respondent on 26-10-1995, the same was subsequently revised after collecting various statistics and the award was finalised and approved by the first respondent on 30-12-1995 for Rs. 7,72,557/- and the same was duly communicated to the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act on 6-1-1996 calling upon the petitioner to receive the payment, but the petitioner did not choose to accept the same. It is the further contention of the respondents that the second respondent cannot pass an award without the approval of the Collector and that as per G.O.Ms No. 1843 Revenue (K) Department dated 13-12-1984, the competent authority to accord approval is the District Collector/Joint Collector/Special Collector in the districts who is looking after the land acquisition cases. In the present case the Joint Collector, who was looking after the land acquisition cases, granted approval on 30-12-1995. The draft award prepared on 26-10-1995 is no award in the eye of law as the same was neither approved by the competent authority nor was it communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner managed to obtain copies of the same by the use of fraudulent means and disciplinary action is being taken against the employees who facilitated the same.

    4. Before the learned Single Judge two questions were raised:

    (1) When once an award is passed by the second respondent who is authorised officer, is it open to the first respondent to change, modify or pass a fresh award?

    (2) Whether the said action of the first respondent amounts to proper compliance of the order passed by this court on 23-3-1995?

    5. The learned Judge felt that a further question arises as to whether in a contempt case this court can enter into and examine the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Judge, being of the view that the said questions are important questions, referred the matter to a Division Bench.

    6. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with enquiry and award by the Collector. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of the said Section, which was inserted by Act 68 of 1984, provides that no award shall be made by the Collector under this Sub-Section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. In exercise of the powers conferred by the said proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in G.O.Ms No. 1843 Revenue (K) Department dated 13-12-1984 authorising the District Collectors, Joint Collectors and Special Collectors in the districts looking after the land acquisition cases to accord approval to the awards for payment of compensation in all the land acquisition cases. It is thus clear that the second respondent herein has no power to pass the award without the previous approval of the competent authority prescribed in G.O.Ms No. 1843 dated 13-12-1984. In para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of this contempt case, it is stated as follows:

    “Respondent No. 2 has also completed the award enquiry and has forwarded draft award to respondent No. 1 for approval under Section 12(1) (Sic. Sec. 11(1) on 26-10-1995 but till today respondent No. 1 has not taken any decision for approval of the draft award and kept the matter pending.”

    7. It is further stated in para 5 of the said affidavit that on enquiries made in the office of respondent No. 1 to find out the reasons for not disposing of the matter, the deponent came to know that respondent No. 1 will take his own time for disposal of the matter irrespective of the directions given by the High Court. It is further stated in the same para that the deponent met respondent No. 1 on 14-12-1995 and requested to approve the draft award as the petitioner is facing great hardships and she is badly in need of the amount. On this the deponent was directed by respondent No. 1 to see the law officer who informed the deponent that they were considering to file an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition. It is thus obvious from the said averments that though the second respondent prepared a draft award on 26-10-1995, it was not approved by the competent authority.

    8. We have perused the concerned file which was produced by the learned Government Pleader before us. The file does not show that the said draft award dated 26-10-1955 was approved by the competent authority. On the other hand, the file discloses that an errata to Section 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette on 28-10-1995 and subsequently a revised draft award was prepared by the second respondent on 1-11-1995 which was approved by the Joint Collector on 30-12-1995 and the same was communicated to the petitioner along with Section 12(2) notice on 6-1-1996. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the award dated 26-10-1995 itself should be treated as the final award and that the award dated 30-12-1995 is illegal and void.

    9. At any rate, we are of the view that this question need not be gone into in this contempt case. In J.S Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (1) (1996) 6 SCC 291, it is held by the apex court that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The order may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions, but that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of assailing the same in appropriate proceedings. The same cannot be reviewed in a contempt proceeding. Apart from that, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the award, it is open to her to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and obtain appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we think it unnecessary to take any further steps against the respondents in this proceeding. But before parting with this case, we would like to draw attention to the unsatisfactory manner in which the respondents who are highly placed officials, have made some prevaricating statements in the counter-affidavits and additional counter-affidavits filed by them from time to time in this case and the several discrepancies noticed in the file.

    10. Initially a counter-affidavit was sworn to by the first respondent, District Collector, Hyderabad, on 22-2-1996 stating that second respondent has prepared the draft award on 26-10-1995 which was subsequently revised on 30-12-1995 and the same was finalised by respondent No. 1 for Rs. 7,72,557/-. In the additional counter-affidavit sworn to by the first respondent on 23-3-1996, it is, however, stated that the award was approved by the Joint Collector who was looking after the land acquisition cases. Subsequently another additional counter affidavit of Sri Sunil Sarma In-Charge District Collector & District Magistrate of Hyderabad was filed on 22-8-1996 stating that the second respondent prepared a draft award on 1-11-1995 and the same was forwarded to the office of the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector approved the award on 30-12-1995. In the counter-affidavit of the second respondent filed on 22-8-1996, it is asserted that though she (second respondent) prepared a draft award along with a letter to forward it to the Joint Collector on 26-10-1995, it was not sent for approval as she found it was not correct and instead, she prepared another draft award on 1-11-1995, sent it for approval to the Joint Collector on 1-11-1995 and the same was approved by the Joint Collector on 30-12-1995. The file, however, discloses that the second respondent submitted Preliminary Valuation Inspection Report and Preliminary Valuation Statement to the Collector, Hyderabad district along with her letter dated 1-9-1995 recommending that the market value of the land be fixed at Rs. 928/- per sq. yard and the same were approved by Sri Sunil Sarma on 23-10-1995. This is the value that was finally adopted in the award dated 30-12-1995. When the said valuation was approved by the Joint Collector on 23-10-1995 itself, it is ununderstandable how the second respondent could have prepared a draft award on 26-10-1995 fixing the market value at Rs. 3,600/- per sq. yard. Subsequently the second respondent submitted a fresh draft award for approval on 1-11-1995. The date of the covering letter with which the draft award was submitted for approval appears to have been corrected from “26-10-1995” to “01-11-1995”. The date put on the award was also similarly corrected from “26-10-1995” to “01-11-1995”. It was approved by Sri Sunil Sarma on 30-12-1995. The original of the alleged draft award prepared on 26-10-1995 is not found in the file at all. The file contains a xerox copy of the same which appears to have been sent by the petitioner along with her representation dated ???-1-1996. The said xerox copy of the award dated 26-10-1995 and the covering letter dated 26-10-1995 accompanying it read as if it is a final award passed and pronounced in open court by the second respondent but not a mere draft award which is being submitted for approval. These discrepancies give rise to suspicion that the records might have been doctored and the same do not redound to the credit of the officials. We would have been, under the circumstances, inclined to probe the matter a little more deeply but for the categorical averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case and also the legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court with regard to the scope of a contempt proceeding. We, therefore, leave the matter at that. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it is a fit case to grant one month's time from today to the petitioner to file objections to the award dated 30-12-1995 and seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. I shall also be open to the petitioner to receive the compensation as per the award dated 30-12-1995 without prejudice to her right to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within the time stipulated above. The contempt case is disposed of accordingly with the above directions and observations.

    11. No order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Smt. Rabia Bee Khaja Bee v. R. Subrahmanyam, Ias, Collector Hyderabad & Anr.
    (Apr 4, 1997)