http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 6099 of 2001

PETITIONER:

Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by L.Rs

RESPONDENT:

State of U. P. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2007

BENCH:

C. K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6100 OF 2001

Somendra Singh & Anr. ..... Appellants

Versus

State of U. P. & Ors. ..... Respondents

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6101 OF 2001

Jagdish Pal Singh ..... Appellant

Versus

State of U. P. & Ors. ..... Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 480 of 2004

IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 6099 of 2001

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

These appeals (being Civil Appeal Nos. 6099, 6100 and

6101 of 2001) are directed against a common judgment and

order dated 28th February, 2000 passed by the Division Bench

of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the

impugned order, the High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous

Petition Nos. 31681/1998, 32856/1998 and 32857/1998 filed

by the petitioners-appellants herein challenging the

correctness and validity of the Award passed by the Collector

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the Act"].

These appeals are taken up and heard together and are

decided by this common judgment.

Facts necessary to understand and comprehend the

controversy involved in these cases are briefly stated as

under:-

The appellants are the owners/bhoomidars of different

parcels of lands in village Dantal, District Meerut, Uttar

Pradesh [for short "U.P."]. As per the Zonal Development Plan,

the lands of the appellants fall under Zone-IV. On

11.06.1985, the State of U.P. issued a Notification under

Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire 168 bighas of land

including the land of the appellants for construction of

residential/commercial buildings by the Meerut Development

Authority (MDA) \026 respondent No.3 herein under a Planned

Development Scheme. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act

was published in the Official Gazette on 13.6.1985. On

19.7.1985, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was

published in the local newspapers and Declaration under

Section 6 of the Act was published in the newspapers on

25.07.1985. The substance of both the Notifications was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

published in the local newspapers on 25.07.1985. The

provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were also invoked and

enquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with.

The appellants and some more owners of the lands filed

separate writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in the year 1985 challenging the validity of the

Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act inter alia on the

grounds that the lands of the owners had not been acquired

for public purpose and that the action of the State

Government in taking recourse to the provisions of Section 17

of the Act was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Division

Bench allowed the writ petitions in part vide order dated

14.01.1988 by holding that the substance of the two

Notifications contemplated by Section 4 and Section 6 of the

Act was given on the same day, i.e. on 25.07.1985 in the

locality, therefore, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act

would be invalid in terms of the amended provisions of Section

17(4) of the Act. Consequently, declaration under Section 6 of

the Act was quashed.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellants and the MDA both had

challenged the order of the High Court by special leave

petitions in this Court in the year 1988.

This Court granted leave in all the special leave petitions.

Civil Appeal No. 1828 of 1988 filed by the MDA was allowed by

the Court vide judgment dated 19.09.1996. The appeals of the

claimants including the appellants were dismissed. The Land

Acquisition Officer was directed to pass the Awards within a

period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of

this Court [see Meerut Development Authority v. Satbir Singh &

Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 462].

It appears from the record that thereafter the

respondents herein had conducted a fresh survey of the lands

and prepared a site plan marking the lands in different colours

as per the nature and extent of the areas. On 20.10.1997, the

Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in respect of 22

bighas 16 biswas and 12 biswansi of land and an area of 54

bighas 11 biswas and 16 biswansi was excluded from the

acquisition including some portions of the lands of the

appellants because some constructions were found having

been raised over that extent of land by the people residing

near and around the area and the MDA had declined to take

possession of the constructed area. It is the case of the

appellants that the Land Acquisition Officer made an Award

on 18.09.1998 in respect of their acquired land without giving

any notice or hearing to the appellants and also beyond the

period of two years. The respondents notified the making of

the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer in "Dainik Jagran"

(a Hindi daily newspaper).

The appellants filed Civil Writ Petitions in the year 1998

in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the

Award inter alia on the grounds that the Award was made by

the Land Acquisition Officer after the statutory period as

contemplated under Section 11A of the Act. The High Court

granted stay of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.

Finally, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions by

holding that the Award marked as Annexure-4, specifically

referred to 13.08.1985, the date of publication of declaration

under Section 6 of the Act and accepting the said date as the

last date of publication and the fact that stay was operating

since 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996, the Award dated 18.09.1998

was held having been made within the period of limitation as

envisaged by Section 11A of the Act and as such the

proceedings initiated for acquisition would not lapse. The

appellants were directed to handover the possession of the

acquired land within three months from the date of the order.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

The order of the High Court would reveal that subsequently at

the request of the counsel, six months' time was granted to the

appellants and other persons who were parties before the High

Court for handing over the possession of the lands to the

respondents. Now, the appellants are before this Court in

these appeals.

Shri Anil Raj Kumar, Officer on Special Duty, MDA,

respondent No.4 herein, in his counter affidavit states that the

High Court has taken into consideration the Award passed by

the Collector specifically referring to 13.08.1985, the date of

publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act and the

fact that the stay order was in operation w.e.f. 02.08.1985 till

19.09.1996. It is also stated that the High Court has upheld

the Award having been passed on 18.09.1998 within the

period of limitation as prescribed by Section 11A of the Act

and as such the land acquisition proceedings would not lapse

as contended by the appellants. He reasserted that

declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on

13.08.1985 and not on 25.07.1985 as alleged by the

appellants.

Smt. Nisha Goel, Additional District Magistrate (Joint

Organisation), Meerut, in joint counter affidavit, filed on

behalf of State of U.P.-respondent No.1, District

Magistrate/Collector, Meerut \026 respondent no.2 and Additional

District Magistrate (Joint Organisation), Meerut - respondent

no. 3 in paragraph 4(d) has stated the details of the dates on

which the respective publications came to be made. She has

specifically stated that the gist of the Notification under

Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(2) was made in

the locality on 13.08.1985 by beat of drums. She stated that

out of the total area of 168 bighas 7 biswas and 4.15 biswansi

notified for acquisition, possession to the extent of 85 bighas

12 biswas and 12 biswansi was taken over on 16.08.1985 and

an Award with respect to the said land was also given on

24.07.1987. Out of the remaining land measuring 77 bighas

8 biswas and 8.15 biswansi, an area of 46 bighas 12 biswas

and 17.5 biswansi is covered by unauthorised construction,

therefore, it was left out of acquisition. She stated that the

Award dated 18.09.1998 made by the Land Acquisition

Collector pertains only to land admeasuring 7 bighas 19

biswas and 9 biswansi.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with

their assistance perused the entire material on record.

The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently

contended that in terms of Section 11A of the Act, it is

mandatory to make an Award within two years from

25.07.1985, the date of the publication of the declaration

under Section 6 of the Act. Admittedly, the Award was made

on 18.09.1998 and as such, according to the learned counsel,

the acquisition proceedings have become null and void. He

urged that the High Court has failed to appreciate the import

of the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Act in proper

perspective and therefore, the order impugned in these

appeals deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State of U. P. and MDA contended that the High Court was

right in holding that the substance of the declaration under

Section 6(2) was published in the locality on 13.08.1985 and

after excluding the period between 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996

in terms of Explanation to Section 11A of the Act, when the

land acquisition proceedings remained pending in the High

Court of Allahabad and later on till Civil Appeal No.1828 of

1988 and connected matters came to be finally decided by this

Court on 19.09.1996.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

a few provisions of the Act need to be noted. They are Section

6(1) and (2) and Section 11A of the Act.

"Section 6. Declaration that land is

required for a public purpose.\027

(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of

this Act, when the Appropriate

Government is satisfied after considering

the report, if any, made under section 5A,

sub-section (2), that any particular land

is needed for a public purpose, or for a

company, a declaration shall be made to

that effect under the signature of a

Secretary to such Government or of some

officer duly authorised to certify its orders

and different declarations may be made

from time to time in respect of different

parcels of any land covered by the same

notification under section 4, sub-section

(1), irrespective of whether one report or

different reports has or have been made

(wherever required) under section 5-A,

sub-section (2):

[Provided \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005.

Provided further\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005]

[Explanation 1.\027 \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005..

Explanation 2.\027 \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005.....]

(2 ) Every declaration shall be published

in the Official Gazette, [and in two daily

newspapers circulating in the locality in

which the land is situate of which at least

one shall be in the regional language, and

the Collector shall cause public notice of

the substance of such declaration to be

given at convenient places in the said

locality (the last of the date of such

publication and the giving of such public

notice, being hereinafter referred to as

the date of publication of the declaration),

and such declaration shall state] the

district or other territorial division in

which the land is situate, the purpose for

which it is needed, its approximate area,

and where a plan shall have been made

of the land, the place where such plan

may be inspected.

(3) \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005

Section 11A of the Act and Explanation thereto (omitting

the proviso which is not material in this case) are as under:

"11A. Period within which an award

shall be made.\027(1) The Collector shall

make an award under Section 11 within a

period of two years from the date of the

publication of the declaration and if no

award is made within that period, the

entire proceedings for the acquisition of

the land shall lapse:

Provided\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005.

Explanation.\027In computing the period of

two years referred to in this section the

period during which any action or

proceeding to be taken in pursuance of

the said declaration is stayed by an order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

of a Court shall be excluded.

Section 6(2), on a plain reading, deals with the various

modes of publication and they are: (a) publication in the

Official Gazette, (b) publication in two daily newspapers

circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which

at least one shall be in the regional language and (c) causing

public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given

at convenient places in the said locality. There is no option

left with anyone to give up or waive any mode and all such

modes have to be strictly resorted to. The principle is well

settled that where any statutory provision provides a

particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing

or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed

therefor in the Act.

The provisions of Section 11A are intended to benefit the

land owner and ensure that the Award is made within a period

of two years from the date of the declaration under Section 6.

In ordinary course, therefore, when the Government fails to

make an Award within two years of the declaration under

Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and

its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings

are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section

11A, the proceedings will elapse. The period of two years

referred to in Section 11A shall be computed by counting from

the last of the publication dates, as per the prescribed modes

of publication.

In the present cases, as noted above, the appellants and

other landholders filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition in the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1985

whereby and whereunder they have challenged combined

Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act issued by the

State Government. The High Court vide order dated

14.01.1988 partly allowed the writ petitions. It appears from

the record that MDA and some claimants feeling aggrieved,

filed separate sets of appeals against the judgment dated

14.01.1988 in this Court. This Court allowed Civil Appeal

No.1828 of 1985 filed by MDA and dismissed the appeals of

the claimants. By judgment dated 19.09.1996, this Court set

aside the order of the High Court and directed the Collector to

make Awards within a period of six months from the date of

the receipt of the order of this Court. Finally, the Collector

made an Award on 18.09.1998 which came to be challenged

by the appellants before the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad inter alia on the ground that the Award was made

beyond the period as envisaged under Section 11A of the Act.

The High Court, as noted above, has held: "the Collector in the

Award (Annexure P-4) specifically refers 13.08.1985 as the

date of publication of Notification under Section 6. Accepting

this as the last date of publication and the fact that stay was

operating since 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996, we hold the Award

passed on 18.09.1998 was within the limitation as envisaged

by Section 11A of the Act and as such the proceedings

initiated for acquisition does not lapse."

In our view, the order of the High Court is not legal and

justified. The Division Bench seems to have committed a

patent error, despite the decisions of this Court in Eugenio

Misquita & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors. [(1997) 8 SCC 47] (which

does not appear to have been brought to its notice). While

applying the ratio in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Markant

Singh [(1995) 2 SCC 497], this Court in Eugenio Misquita &

Ors. (supra), observed at SCC p. 52, Para 9 as under:

"\005.The publication under Section 6 (2) of

the Act is for a different purpose, inter

alia, for reckoning the limitation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

prescribed under Section 11A of the Act.

This construction is supported by the

language employed in Section 6(2) of the

Act. In particular, the word "hereinafter"

used in Section 6(2) will amply prove that

the last of the series of the publication

referred to under Section 6(2) is relevant

for the purposes coming thereafter,

namely, for making award under Section

11A. The language employed in second

proviso to Section 6(1) also supports this

construction."

That apart, the words "the last of the dates of such

publication and the giving of such public notice being

hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the

declaration" leave no room for any assumptions to the

contrary. Thus, the view taken by the High Court in these

cases not only runs counter to the mandate of law enacted by

Parliament, but is opposed to the dicta of this Court.

We have gone through the judgment of the High Court of

Allahabad dated 14.01.1988 passed in Civil Miscellaneous

Writ Petition No.10551 of 1985 and other connected petitions

earlier filed by the appellants and other owners of the land. In

those cases, the High Court has observed that joint

Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6

of the Act was issued by the State Government on 25.07.1985.

The MDA in paragraph 13 of the grounds of appeal being Civil

Appeal No.1828 of 1988 on the record of this Court filed

against the order of the High Court dated 14.01.1998 has

specifically stated that the substance of the two notifications

contemplated by the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act

was given on 25.07.1985 in the locality. Again, it was

reasserted and stressed that publication of substance in the

locality on the same day, i.e. on 25.07.1985, would not affect

the appellants' rights adversely particularly when the

provisions of Section 5A, i.e. inviting objections against the

acquisition of the appellants' lands, have been dispensed with.

The MDA has admitted in its grounds of appeal that substance

of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act

was given in the locality on 25.07.1985. Now, Shri Anil Raj

Kumar, Officer on Special Duty of MDA, in his counter

affidavit filed before this Court in SLP (C) No.8331 of 2000 has

taken inconsistent stand when he states in para 2(II) thus: 'the

High Court has taken into conspectus the Award marked as

Annexure IV, specifically refers 13.08.1985 as a date of

publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act, accepting this as a last date of publication

and the fact that stay order was in operation w.e.f. 2.8.1985

till 19.9.1996'.

The statement of Smt. Nisha Goel made in the counter

affidavit filed by her on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3

that the declaration of public notice by last mode under

Section 6(2) of the Act by beat of drums in the locality on

13.08.1985 manifestly is wrong and on the face of it contrary

to the contents of the Notice (Annexure R-2) filed by her with

the affidavit. This notice dated 13.08.1985 was issued by the

Land Record Inspector, Block Rohta, Tehsil Meerut, in

response to the letter of MDA dated 09.08.1985 and that of the

District Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, dated 01.08.1985.

The relevant substance of the notice reads as under:-

"the land described in the enclosed list

situate in village Danta, Block Rohta,

Tehsil Meerut has been acquired by the

Meerut Development Authority for its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

residential scheme and letter for

obtaining its possession has been

received on 12.8.85 at 3 p.m. and

intimation of which has been given today

13.8.85 in village Dantal to all concerned

farmer and residents of village by beat of

drums and in loud voice that notification

had been published on 19.7.85,

25.7.1985 in daily newspapers, "Meerut

Samachar", Janta Express" and "Hamara

Yug" and Government Gazette. Since the

land has been acquired for the residential

scheme of the Meerut Development

Authority, no farmer should change the

nature of rights in the land and the

possession of acquired land will be taken

on 16.3.85."

This notice appears to have been signed by marginal

witnesses Har Pal Singh, Sudhir Kumar and Yash Vir Singh

and thumb mark by Chhote on 13.08.1985. The language

employed in this notice would not prove that it was the last

mode of publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act. In

substance, this notice appears to have been issued in

purporting exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act for

taking possession of the acquired land on 16.08.1985. Thus,

this Notification, in no circumstances, would prove that it was

the last mode of publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the

Act.

This Court in General Manager, Department of

Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob s/o

Kochuvarkey Kalliath (dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(2003) 9 SCC 662]

has held that period of two years from the date of publication

of the declaration prescribed under Section 11A for passing

the Award, must be calculated from the last of the series of the

publications referred to under Section 6(2) of the Act.

Again, in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar &

Ors. [(2003) 10 SCC 1], this Court reiterating the proposition

of law has held that modes of publication of declaration

prescribed under Section 6(2) are conjoint and cumulative and

all of them must be resorted to and completed. Sub-section

(2) of Section 6 of the Act necessarily makes it abundantly

clear that the last of the dates of the publication and giving of

such public notice shall "hereinafter" be referred to as the date

of publication of the declaration and limitation period of two

years for making Award under Section 11A has to be counted

as the last of the dates out of the three modes of publication

specified in Section 6 of the Act.

It is not in dispute that the land acquisition proceedings

remained stayed vide order of the High Court of Allahabad in

the earlier writ petitions filed by the appellants as also during

the pendency of the SLPs filed by the MDA and the appellants

and other persons against the order dated 14.01.1988 of the

High Court of Allahabad, which were decided on 19.09.1996.

The Land Acquisition Collector has even failed to make the

Award within stipulated period of six months as directed by

this Court vide order dated 19.09.1996.

The ratio of the judgment in State of Haryana & Anr. v.

Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133], relied upon by the

respondents, is of no assistance or help to them. In that case,

while dealing with the provisions of Sections 4(1), 5A and 6(2)

of the Act, this Court held: "since there is an opportunity

already given to the owner of the land or persons having

interest in the land to raise their objections during the inquiry

under Section 5A, or otherwise in case of dispensing with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

inquiry under Section 5A unless they show any grave

prejudice caused to them in non-publication of the substance

of the declaration under Section 6(1), the omission to publish

the substance of the declaration under Section 6(1) in the

locality would not render the declaration of Section 6 invalid.

However, this does not mean that the officers should not

comply with the requirement of law. It is their duty to do it."

In the light of the settled principles of law in Eugenio

Misquita & Ors. (supra), General Manager, Department of

Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram (supra) and Bihar

State Housing Board (supra), the entire acquisition

proceedings for acquiring the land of the appellants

culminating in the Award made on 19.09.1998 after the period

contemplated in Section 11A of the Act shall elapse

completely.

The High Court was not correct and justified in holding

that the last date of publication of the declaration under

Section 6 was 13.8.1985 and not 25.07.1985. In the earlier

civil writ petitions, the same High Court has accepted

25.07.1985 as the date of declaration under Section 6 of the

Act.

No other point was urged by the parties.

For all the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment

of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad cannot be sustained. The Civil Miscellaneous Writ

Petition Nos. 31681, 32856 and 32857 of 1998 filed by the

appellants before the High Court shall stand allowed. These

appeals are allowed with costs.

However, we make it clear that if the respondents are still

interested to acquire the land of the appellants, they are not

precluded from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with

law.

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 480 OF 2004 IN CIVIL

APPEALNO. 6099 OF 2001

Kunwar Pal Singh, the original petitioner, filed Special

Leave Petition No. 8331 of 2000 in this Court against the final

judgment and order dated 28.02.2000 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ

Petition No. 3168/1988. The said special leave petition came

up for hearing on 10.07.2000 when this Court passed the

following order:-

"Issue notice.

Until further orders status quo as regards

the possession so far as the petitioner is

concerned to be maintained."

The matter came up for hearing on 28.08.2001 when this

Court granted special leave to the petitioner and directed the

interim order to continue in the meantime. Kunwar Pal Singh

died during the pendency of C.A. No. 6099 of 2001 and now

his legal representatives are pursuing these proceedings.

The controversy in these proceedings pertains to the

acquisition of the lands of the appellants by the State

Government for the benefit of Meerut Development Authority

[for short "the MDA"]. The State Government in the year 1985

issued joint notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] proposing

to acquire 168 bighas of land including the land of the

appellants. The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on

20.10.1997 in respect of 2 biswas of land out of Plot No. 94.

An area of 3-16-5 bigha of land out of Plot No. 84 was left out

from acquisition. The appellants stated that later on, after a

period of about 2 years without giving any notice to them, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

Land Acquisition Officer made an Award dated 18.09.1998 in

respect of 12 biswas of land out of Plot No. 94 and 3-16-5

bigha land out of Plot No. 84. The Award of the Land

Acquisition Collector was challenged by the appellants and

other land owners before the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad inter alia on the ground that the Award came to be

passed after the statutory period contemplated under Section

11A of the Act. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings

had lapsed. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions of the

appellants and other claimants. The appellants have filed

special leave petitions in this Court against the impugned

common order of the High Court. In the special leave petition

out of which Civil Appeal No. 6099 of 2001 arises, the above-

said interim order was passed by this Court. The grievance of

the appellants in this contempt petition is that the MDA has

encroached upon 10 biswas of land in Plot No. 84, therefore,

the original appellant submitted representation dated

05.11.2003 requesting the MDA to get Plot No. 84 demarcated

on the spot. The lower staff of MDA, for obvious reasons,

wanted to encroach upon another Plot No. 94 owned by the

appellants. The appellants submitted that second

representation was made on 9.02.2004 to the Commissioner,

MDA, requesting the MDA to remove its encroachment on 10

biswas of land of Plot No. 84 and no further encroachment

should be made by the Authority on Plot No. 94. In response

to the representations of the appellants, Officer on Special

Duty, MDA, vide letter dated 21.05.2004 informed the original

appellant that because of the operation of the status quo order

passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 8331/2000, it was not

possible for the party to get the demarcation done on Plot No.

84 measuring 3-16-5 bighas. The appellants alleged that the

District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut \026 respondent No. 2 and

the Additional District Magistrate (Joint Organisation), Meerut

\026 respondent No. 3 herein came to Plot No. 94 accompanied by

police force at about 18.45 hours with bull dozers. One son of

the original appellant went to the site and informed

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the other police officials not to

take law into their hands in demolishing the boundary wall of

their farm house, but despite the order of status quo passed by

this Court they had demolished the boundary wall and the

cattle sheds constructed by the original appellant in the

middle of the plot. The appellants further alleged that

respondents - contemnor nos. 2 and 3 threatened to hand over

the possession of Plot No. 94 to some other persons and once

the construction work would be completed on that plot, no

Court would be able to get the possession restored to the

original appellant. On these premises, the appellants have

prayed to deal with the contemnors for wilful and intentional

violation of the order of this Court dated 28.08.2001 and

punish them in accordance with law.

Shri Shantanu Kumar Trivedi, Additional Commissioner,

Meerut Division, (former Vice-Chairman), MDA, in his counter

affidavit has stated that the lands forming part of Khasra Nos.

84 and 94 (plots) were acquired for and on behalf of MDA for

construction of residential houses. The Land Acquisition

Collector made an Award 18.09.1998 in respect of 12 biswas

land forming part of Plot No. 94 and 3 bighas 16 biswas and 5

biswani land out of Khasra No. 84. He stated that MDA has

full respect to the orders of the Courts and the status quo

order passed by the Court was never disturbed by the MDA on

the spot. It is his plea that after receiving the Report of Tehsil

Lekpal as well as of the Engineer, the MDA demolished the

existing unauthorized construction on Plot No. 88. The

construction on Plot No. 94 after receipt of the Survey Report

was left undisturbed. The deponent denied allegations of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

appellants regarding encroachment by the MDA over Khasra

No./Plot No.84. He stated that because of the operation of the

status quo orders of this Court, the MDA could not oblige the

original appellant to get the area demarcated. It is contended

by the deponent that the allegations made in the contempt

application by the appellants against the respondents are

wholly false and baseless. However, the deponent submitted

that he has not committed any contempt of the orders of this

Court, still he has tendered unqualified apology for any

inconvenience caused to this Court.

Shri Anoop Sharma, Assistant Engineer and Shri Girija

Shankar Mall, Junior Engineer of MDA, have filed their

separate counter affidavits. They have stated that the MDA

has not at all disturbed the status quo order passed by this

Court in regard to the Plot Nos./Khasra Nos. 84 and 94 as

alleged by the appellants. Their stand is that it was only in

respect of Plot No. 88 where development works were carried

on as the said area was out of the purview of the orders of any

court. The allegations of wilful disobedience of the status quo

order passed by this Court are categorically denied by them.

However, both the officials have tendered an unconditional

apology.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

having scrutinized in detail the counter affidavits of the

respondents, we are of the view that there is nothing before us

to show that the respondents have wilfully flouted or

intentionally violated the status quo order dated 10.07.2000

and 28.08.2001 passed by this Court. Therefore, it is not a fit

case for initiating any proceedings for contempt against the

respondents.

Consequently, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.

Notice discharged.