REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1510         OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.30317 of 2017)

ER. K. ARUMUGAM     …Appellant  VERSUS

V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.                …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

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 Rs.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

1

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 order dated

30.03.2015, the District Collector, Kancheepuram fixed the value

of the land at the rate of Rs.260/- per cent and the total value of

the land was arrived at Rs.22,490/-. Giving incentive of 12% for

every  year  up  to  2012,  the  value  of  the  land  was  fixed  at

Rs.2,43,001/-.  A demand draft of Rs.2,43,001/- had been sent to

the first respondent by the appellant-Board  vide its letter dated

14.05.2015 which the first respondent refused to receive and the

same was returned.  

4. On  31.01.2016,  the  first  respondent  filed  Writ  Petition

No.3874 of 2016 and on the third day of filing of the petition i.e. on

03.02.2016, the High Court disposed of the said writ petition with

direction to the appellant-Board to submit a report to the District

Collector and to ensure that a fair and reasonable compensation

be sanctioned to the first respondent at an early date not later

than two months. The said order reads as under:-

“6. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to submit his report/response to the 4th respondent as  requested  in  the  letter  of  the  4th respondent  dated 23.09.2015,  within  a  period  of  three weeks  from the  date of receipt of a copy of this order.  On receipt of such shall  place appropriate proposal for the consideration of the 2nd respondent within  a  period  of  three  weeks  thereafter.  Thereafter,  the  2nd respondent shall consider the matter and ensure that fair and reasonable  compensation  is  sanctioned  to  the  petitioner  and

2

paid at the earliest, not later than two months from the date on which  the  proposal  is  submitted  by  the  4th respondent.  The authorities are well advised to adhere to the time schedule fixed by this Court, failing which, it would amount to disobedience of the order, warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act.”

5. In compliance of the above direction, the Managing Director

of the appellant-Board had sent a letter dated 03.03.2016 to the

District Collector, Kancheepuram stating that the District Collector,

Kancheepuram is the authority to fix the land value and requested

him to fix a fair and reasonable value of the land as ordered by the

High Court.  A State Level Committee meeting attended by High

level Officers had been convened on 25.04.2016.  As seen from the

Minutes  of  the  Meeting,  the  entire  matter  has  been  thoroughly

discussed and considered. It was decided in the said 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

3

dated 23.05.2016 fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.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  Rs.200/-  per  sq.  ft.  for  the  land  in  S.No.271/2A5E in  his letter  no.114/2012,  dt.  16.04.2012.  Accordingly,  the  District Collector, Kancheepuram in his proceedings dt. 19.05.2012 has fixed  the  land  value  at  Rs.200/-  per  sq.  ft.  which  was  the guideline value as on 01.04.2012 and the total value of the land was arrived at Rs.75,42,800/-.”

The District Collector also observed that the land value at Rs.200/-

per sq. ft. is fixed and the same may be paid with interest at the

rate of 12% per annum from 19.05.2012 till date of payment.  The

District Collector opined that land value fixed at Rs.200/- per sq. ft.

as on 01.04.2012 is a fair and reasonable value considering the

classification of the land at the time when Board entered upon the

land.  Based  on  the  land  value  fixed  by  the  District  Collector,

calculating the amount at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft. along with

interest, TWAD Board calculated the total amount of compensation

at Rs.1,11,80,723/- as under:-

Land area …. 86  ½  cent  (or) 37714 Sq. ft.

Cost  of  land  at  the  rate  of Rs.200/- per sq. ft.

…. Rs.75,42,800/-

Interest @ the rate of 12% per annum  from  19.05.2012  to 25.05.2016  -  4  years  and  7 days

…. Rs.36,37,923/-

Total …. Rs.1,11,80,723/-

4

The first respondent received the said amount of Rs.1,11,80,723/-

with  protest  on  31.05.2016  and  issued  a  receipt  for  the  said

amount.  

7. The first respondent did not challenge the rate fixed by the

District Collector at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. in a manner known to law.

On the other  hand,  the  first  respondent  filed Contempt  Petition

No.2626 of 2016 in W.P. No.3874 of 2016 on 28.09.2016 alleging

disobedience of the order passed by the High Court on 03.02.2016.

The  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-Board

submitted that when the contempt petition came up before the

learned  Single  Judge  on  25.11.2016,  though  no  orders  were

passed,  some instructions  appeared  to  have  been given  to  the

TWAD Board. It was submitted that apprehending that she might

be hauled up for contempt of court, the District Collector vide order

dated 30.11.2016 fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs.500/-

per  sq.  ft.  When the contempt petition came up for  hearing on

13.02.2017,  going  beyond  the  order  passed  in  Writ  Petition

No.3874/2016, the learned Single Judge fixed the value of the land

at Rs.600/- per sq. ft and directed the balance amount be paid to

the first respondent at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. ft.  The order

passed by the High Court reads as under:-

“6.  Considering the facts  and circumstances of  the case,  this Court  is  inclined to fix a reasonable amount of  compensation and accordingly,  the same is fixed at Rs.600/-  per sq. ft.  has been  paid  on  25.05.2016  together  with  interest,  the  balance amount  payable  per  square  feet  is  Rs.400/-.  However,  the interest for the differential  amount shall  be calculated only at

5

the rate of Rs.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 the four corners of the order in W.P.

No.3874 of  2016 dated 03.02.2016 and directing the appellant-

Board to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft.

11. In  Writ  Petition  No.3874/2016,  the  High  Court  passed  the

order dated 03.02.2016 with direction to the authorities to ensure

a  fair  and  reasonable  compensation  be  sanctioned  to  the  first

respondent and paid at the earliest.  Immediately after the order

of  the High Court,  the Managing Director,  TWAD Board wrote a

letter  dated  03.03.2016  requesting  the  District  Collector,

Kancheepuram  to  fix  a  fair  and  reasonable  value  of  the  land.

Thereafter, the State Level Committee meeting attended by the

6

High  Level  Officers  had  been  convened  and  the  matter  was

considered  and  discussed  at  length.   The  State  High  Level

Committee felt that the case would neither fall under the ambit of

Land Acquisition Act nor under ‘Private Negotiation’ and therefore,

the Committee felt that it has no role to play and that the District

Collector is competent to fix the value of the land and the State

Level Committee remitted the matter to the District Collector to fix

the value of the land and communicate the value determined by

him to  the  Managing  Director,  TWAD Board  so  that  a  fair  and

reasonable  compensation  is  sanctioned  to  the  first  respondent

within the time limit fixed by the High Court in the order passed in

Writ Petition No.3874/2016.   

12. A party can be proceeded for disobedience of the order of

the  court  only  when  there  is  willful  disobedience  and  non-

compliance of the order passed by the court.  On perusal of the

order dated 03.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.3874/2016, it is

seen that in the said order, court has only directed the authorities

to ensure fair and reasonable compensation be sanctioned to the

first respondent and be paid at the earliest.  The officers quickly

acted in  order  to  comply  with  the  direction  of  the  High  Court.

When  the  direction  was  only  to  consider  the  case  of  the  first

respondent  for  ensuring  fair  and  reasonable  compensation  and

having regard to the swift action taken by the appellant and other

officials, in our view, there was no disobedience of the order of the

7

court,  much  less  wilful  disobedience  to  invoke  contempt

jurisdiction.

13. After the State Level Committee remitted the matter to the

District  Collector,  the  District  Collector  conducted  a  detailed

enquiry 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 Rs.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  Rs.75,42,800/-  and  the  interest  at  the  rate  of  12%

totalling Rs.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  Rs.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 Rs.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.   

8

14. In  Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retired)  (2008) 14

SCC 392, the Supreme Court held that whether contempt has been

committed  or  not  is  not  a  matter  of  mechanical  application  of

mind.  In a given case, it has to be tested having regard to the

subject matter of the proceeding in which it is made and the nexus

between  the  alleged  contumacious  act.   In  the  Writ  Petition

No.3874/2016, the High Court only directed TWAD Board and its

officials to ensure just and reasonable compensation be paid to the

first respondent which has been duly complied with by the Board

by paying the compensation fixing the land value at the rate of

Rs.200/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.2012 as per guideline value.  In

compliance with the order passed by the High Court,  when the

compensation has been paid to the first respondent, there was no

question of disobedience of the order of the court to maintain the

contempt petition.  Without appreciating that the order of the High

Court has been duly complied with, the learned Single Judge erred

in entertaining the contempt petition.  Apart from entertaining the

contempt petition, the learned Single Judge further fell in error in

issuing  positive  direction  to  the  authorities  to  pay  further

compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.600/-  per  sq.  ft.,  which,  in  our

considered view, is arbitrary and unsustainable.

15. The learned senior counsel Mr. Ramamoorthy appearing for

the Board submitted that when the contempt petition came up for

hearing  on  25.11.2016,  the  learned  Single  Judge  issued  oral

9

instructions  to  the  TWAD  Board  and  the  appellant  Board  was

compelled to take further steps in fixing the higher land value.  It

is stated that though no orders were passed by the learned Single

Judge on 25.11.2016, oral directions were issued by the learned

Single  Judge.   The  same  is  reflected  in  the  proceeding  of  the

District Collector dated 30.11.2016 as seen from the following:-

“….Thereafter,  the  land  owner  filed  the  contempt  of  court petition in No.2626/2016 before the Chennai High Court.  When the  aforesaid  case  was  on  trial,  on  25.11.2016,  as  per  the instructions given by the honourable judge, today (30.11.2016) the Superintending Engineer of the TWAD Board and the District Registrar  Kanchipuram,  in  the  meeting  held  with  them,  it  is informed to the land owner as follows…..”

Though much reliance was placed upon the proceedings of  the

District 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  Rs.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 Rs.500/- per sq.

ft.”  This contention does not merit acceptance. Be it noted that 10

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 Rs.500/- per sq. ft.  Since we are quashing the order of the

District  Collector dated 30.11.2016,  in our considered view,  the

first respondent cannot fall  back upon statement of the learned

Additional Advocate General made in the court.  The respondent

cannot  take  advantage  of  such  oral  concession  made  by  the

learned Additional Advocate General.

17. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to

the  four  corners  of  the  order  alleged  to  have  been  disobeyed.

Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel

beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been

floated,  in  Sudhir  Vasudeva,  Chairman  and  Managing

Director,  Oil  and  Natural  Gas  Corporation  Limited  and

others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others  (2014) 3 SCC

373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held as under:-

“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the  liberty  of  the  individual  charged  with  commission  of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution.  This  is  also  necessary  as,  more  often  than  not, adjudication  of  a  contempt  plea  involves  a  process  of  self- determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged.  The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not  been dealt  with  or  decided in the judgment or  the order violation  of  which  is  alleged.  Only  such  directions  which  are

11

explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of  equities  be  considered.  The  Courts  must  also  ensure  that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already  expressed should  be  issued by  the  Court  while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles 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.” [underlining added]

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 Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to

more  than  Rs.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  filing  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 allowed.

..……………………….J.                [R. BANUMATHI]  

12

                            …...………………………..J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi; February 06, 2019

13