Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 343/2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2318/2014

S. K. CONTAINERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.    PETITIONER(S)                                 VERSUS

SUSMITA BHATTACHARYA  & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)/ ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)

AND  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2318/2014

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

We do not find any contumacious conduct on the part  of  the  respondents/alleged  contemnors.   The contempt petition is dismissed. 2. Civil Appeal No. 2318/2014 is taken on Board. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. One main contention advanced by Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, is that Section 6 Notification is not issued within one  year  of  Section  4  Notification  and  hence  the proceedings  have lapsed.   We  find it  difficult to appreciate the submission.  The learned Single Judge in W.P. No.4644/1988 passed the interim order dated 9.9.1988  for  a  period  of  three  weeks  but  with  a further  direction  to  post  the  case  on  23.09.1988, well  within  three  weeks.   However,  the  case  was posted only on 14.11.1988 when the Court was pleased to continue “subsisting” interim order.  In the facts and  circumstances  explained  above,  and  as  rightly

1

Page 2

held by the Division Bench, the interim order had to be deemed to be existing as on the date of extension. Yet another serious argument is for public purpose. However, it is not in dispute that the acquisition is for educational purposes. 5. We  also  find  that  after  the  Land  Acquisition Collector  passed  the  Award,  the  appellants  had  in fact  filed an  application under  Section 18  of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as,  the  Act)  for  enhancement  of  compensation. Section 18 (1) of the Act reads as under:-

“18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may,  by  written  application  to  the Collector,  require  that  the  matter  be referred  by  the  Collector  for  the determination of the Court, whether his objection  be  to  the  measurement  of  the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons  to  whom  it  is  payable,  or  the apportionment  of  the  compensation  among the persons interested.”

6. Once an application under Section 18 of the Act is filed, the presumption under law is that the owner or  the  person  interested  in  the  land  has  certain objections  with  regard  to  (i)  measurement  of  the land, (ii) amount of compensation, (iii) persons to whom  it  is  payable  and  (iv)  apportionment  of  the compensation. 7. Admittedly,  the  appellants  have  filed  an application  under  Section  18  of  the  Act  and, therefore, it is for them to pursue the said remedy.  8. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. We make it clear that the disposal of this appeal shall not stand in the way of the appellants pursuing the application for reference.

2

Page 3

10. Pending  application(s),  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 11. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

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

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 28, 2017.

3