Civil Appeal No.9095 of 2013 (arising Out of SLP (C) No.4757 of 2011). Case: T.C.Gupta & Anr. Vs Hari Om Prakash & Ors.. Supreme Court

Case Number:Civil Appeal No.9095 of 2013 (arising Out of SLP (C) No.4757 of 2011)
Party Name:T.C.Gupta & Anr. Vs Hari Om Prakash & Ors.
Counsel:For Appearing Parties: K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Govind Goel, Ankur Talwar, Sanjay Kr. Yadav, Ankit Goel, Mohan Lal Sharma, S.S. Shamshery, Arun Bhardwaj, Bhakti Vardhan, V.M. Vishnu, Bharat Sood and Kailash Chand, Advs.
Judges:P. Sathasivam C.J.I. and Ranjan Gogoi, J.
Issue:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 5-A, 6; Contempt of Courts Act - Section 12(1); Constitution of India - Article 143(1)
Citation:2013 (X) AD (SC) 470, 2013 (6) AWC 5613 SC, 2013 (4) JLJR 559, 2013 (7) MLJ 402, 2014 (1) PLJR 117, 2014 (1) RCR 164 (Crl), 2013 (12) SCALE 616, 2013 (10) SCC 658
Judgement Date:October 08, 2013
Court:Supreme Court


Ranjan Gogoi, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. By an order dated 31.01.2011 the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held the appellants guilty of commission of contempt and had adjourned the matter to a subsequent date for hearing on the question of sentence. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

  3. The facts, in brief, may be noticed.

    The respondents 1 & 2 had filed a writ petition (C.W.P. No.5104 of 2006) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the acquisition of land belonging to them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short "the Act"). By the impugned Notification(s) issued under the Act, over 500 acres of land belonging to different land owners, including respondents-writ petitioners, was sought to be acquired. According to the respondents-writ petitioners, nearly 80% of the acquired area was subsequently released from acquisition. Consequently, the remaining land (which included the land of the respondents-writ petitioners) had ceased to be viable for the purpose for which the impugned acquisition was made, namely, for development of residential and commercial sectors 8-19 at Sonepat. It was the further case of the respondents-writ petitioners before the High Court that the release of the land proposed for acquisition was at the instance of one Omaxe Housing and Developing Company Ltd. which had arrived at some understandings with the land owners and had executed agreements of sale with such land owners even after publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act.

  4. The writ petition filed by the respondents was resisted by the State by contending, inter-alia, the same to be not maintainable on the ground that the respondents-writ petitioners had not filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act. What happened thereafter is not very relevant save and except that on 17.01.2011 the following order came to be passed by the High Court:

    "Mr. Sehgal seeks time to file additional affidavit on the following points:

  5. In how many cases the land of the landowners who had not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was released through the mechanism of collaboration agreements?.

  6. What are the norms to grant licence to construct a Plotted Colony/Group Housing Colony?.

  7. What are the rules regarding classification of zones i.e. high potential, medium potential and low potential zones, and when those norms were amended?.

  8. Whether the policy/rules/norms were relaxed to grant licence to any of the 11 collaborations in this case?.

    Adjourned to 19.1.2011."

  9. On the date fixed i.e. 19.01.2011, the first appellant filed a duly verified written statement wherein, after setting out the order of the High Court dated 17.01.2011, the appellant had submitted the details of the land owners who had filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act and whose land was released from acquisition. This was in response to the first query made by the High Court in the order dated 17.01.2011. In so far as the second, third and fourth queries are concerned, information was duly furnished by the first appellant. No issue with regard to the said part of the order dated 17.01.2011 having been raised the same may be understood as not requiring any further attention.

  10. On consideration of the written...

To continue reading