Revansidha Soma Laman Rathod Since Dec. Thr. Rep. Thr. Legal Heir Mr. Dnyaneshwar Revansidha Rathod v. Mr. Atul Kapole

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 414 OF 2024 Revansidha Soma Laman @ Rathod Since deceased Thr. LRs.

...Appellant.

Versus

Atul Kapole and Others.

...Respondents.

------ Dr. Ramdas Sabban for the Petitioner.

Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State. ------ Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Date : January 15, 2025.

P. C. :

1.

Contempt is alleged of the order dated 11th March 2024 passed in First Appeal No. 642 of 2021. The First Appeal came to be disposed of on a finding that except for a period of delay of 56 days, the Appellant shall be entitled to receive interest on the amount of compensation which is enhanced at the rate of Rs.2,65,130/- minus amount already paid. In paragraph 10, it is recorded that it is expected of Respondents to pay the amount as early as possible. Contempt Petition alleges non compliance of this order on the ground that the amount was not deposited despite directions contained in paragraph 10 of the said order.

2.

During previous hearing, on 6th January 2025, learned AGP on instructions made a statement that within a period of one week the 1 of

amount will be deposited in the trial Court. The amount is stated to have been deposited in the trial Court on 10th January 2025. Evidence to that effect in the form of communication is tendered across the bar. 3.

Dr. Sabban, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would still continue to press the Contempt Petition contending that there is miscalculation of amount which has been deposited by the State Government and that further directions should be given to recalculate the amount as per the representation made by the Petitioner to the State Government.

4.

I have considered the submissions.

5.

It needs to be noted that in the First Appeal, order was passed on 11th March 2024 by which this Court held that the Appellant shall be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 2,65,130/- minus amount already paid. There is no time limit set out in the order of 11th March 2024 and the expectation was recorded that the amount will be paid as early as possible. The order also records that certain amount is already paid and it was only the enhanced amount of compensation which was to be paid. 6.

Though the order was passed on 11th March 2024, immediately on 9th May 2024 the present Contempt Petition has been filed. It needs to be noted that compensation is to be paid by the State Government which will require administrative approvals and sanctions at various 2 of

levels for release of funds. Thus, the Contempt Petition filed within two months should have been dismissed at the outset, as it was not expected that within a period of two months the contempt should have been moved.

7.

The Apex Court in R. N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik [(2004) 4 SCC 400] has in paragraph 7 and 8 held thus : "7.

We may reiterate that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Courts dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and the Court. It is true that in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending and has ordered that it should be heard along with the First Appeal.

But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is nullity. In such a situation, as there was no willful or deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt proceedings was wholly unjustified. 8.

Further, the decree-holder, who does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the court for non-satisfaction of the money decree. In land acquisition cases when a decree is passed the State is in the position of a judgment debtor and hence the court should not normally lend help to a party who refuses to take legally provided steps for executing the decree. At any rate, the court should be slow to haul up officers of the Government for contempt for non-satisfaction of such money decree."

3 of

8.

The Apex Court has held that the decree-holder who does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the prescribed procedure should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction for non satisfaction of money decree. The Apex Court has struck a note of caution that the Court should be slow to haul up the officers of Government for contempt for non satisfaction of such money decree. The decision of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of present case particularly considering the timeline within which the contempt has been initiated.

9.

Though it cannot be said that there is any contempt of the order dated 11th March 2024, only in order to secure the payment of agriculturists, directions were issued for the deposit of amount, which has been deposited.

10.

Although this Court is inclined to impose exemplary costs for the conduct of contempt Petitioners, considering that the Petitioners are agriculturists, this Court has refrained from imposing any costs. 11.

Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to enter into further adjudication of amounts due and payable in exercise of contempt jurisdiction and it will be open for the Petitioners to take out appropriate proceedings in case of any short-fall. 12.

Contempt Petition stands dismissed.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] 4 of Signed by: Sachin R. Patil Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/01/2025 18:38:04