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- 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.- 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.


Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.”
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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……..”
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 appellantBoard to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft.
  10. 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.
  11. A party can be proceeded for disobedience of the order of
    the court only when there is willful disobedience and noncompliance 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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,
  17. 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 selfdetermination 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