# Pt. Nawin Sharma v. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, I.A.S., Collector Agra

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1084
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-20
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pt-nawin-sharma-v-mr-pankaj-kumar-i-a-s-collector-agra-43731
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Wilful disobedience - Direction to pass award - Compliance.

Writ court directing the Collector only to pass an award under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 without
adjudicating the merits of the claim or prescribing the manner of decision - Authority passing an award
pursuant to such direction - Award granting zero compensation on the ground that land remained
agricultural and no loss was caused by imposition of restrictions - Passing of such award constituting
substantial compliance - Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning or outcome of the award not amounting to
wilful disobedience - No contumacious conduct made out. (Paras 6, 7, 12)

Contempt jurisdiction - Scope - Fresh cause of action.

Decision taken pursuant to a writ direction giving rise to a fresh cause of action - Correctness or legality of
such decision to be examined in appropriate proceedings - Contempt court not to examine merits or sit in
appeal unless the decision is in gross violation of the writ direction - Authority not having been directed to
decide in a particular manner, action taken held bona fide. (Para 12)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340 - Perjury - False statement - Meaning.

Mere incorrect or erroneous statement not constituting a false statement - False statement requiring proof of
knowledge of falsity or reckless indifference to truth with intent to deceive - Documents relied upon relating
to different plot numbers - Disputed questions of fact not determinable in contempt or perjury proceedings
- Absence of material to show conscious falsity or intent to mislead - Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
held not maintainable. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 14)

Result - Contempt application consigned to record; notices discharged - Application under Section
340 Cr.P.C. rejected with liberty to challenge the award before appropriate forum. (Para 15).

## Text

1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No.- 4884 Of 2014

Pt. Nawin Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, I.A.S., Collector Agra ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pt. N. Sharma, In Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
S.C.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Wilful disobedience - Direction to pass award - Compliance.

Writ court directing the Collector only to pass an award under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 without
adjudicating the merits of the claim or prescribing the manner of decision - Authority passing an award
pursuant to such direction - Award granting zero compensation on the ground that land remained
agricultural and no loss was caused by imposition of restrictions - Passing of such award constituting
substantial compliance - Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning or outcome of the award not amounting to
wilful disobedience - No contumacious conduct made out. (Paras 6, 7, 12)

Contempt jurisdiction - Scope - Fresh cause of action.

Decision taken pursuant to a writ direction giving rise to a fresh cause of action - Correctness or legality of
such decision to be examined in appropriate proceedings - Contempt court not to examine merits or sit in
appeal unless the decision is in gross violation of the writ direction - Authority not having been directed to
decide in a particular manner, action taken held bona fide. (Para 12)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340 - Perjury - False statement - Meaning.

Mere incorrect or erroneous statement not constituting a false statement - False statement requiring proof of
knowledge of falsity or reckless indifference to truth with intent to deceive - Documents relied upon relating
to different plot numbers - Disputed questions of fact not determinable in contempt or perjury proceedings
- Absence of material to show conscious falsity or intent to mislead - Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
held not maintainable. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 14)

Result - Contempt application consigned to record; notices discharged - Application under Section
340 Cr.P.C. rejected with liberty to challenge the award before appropriate forum. (Para 15).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)
5 All. Pt. Nawin Sharma Vs Mr. Pankaj Kumar, I.A.S., Collector Agra

1085
1. Heard Sri Shambhu Prasad Sharma, Secretary, Sky Enclave Gramin Sahakari Awas
Samiti Ltd, 60 Jaipur House Market, Agra, in person; and Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel, for the contemnor-opposite party.

2. This contempt application has been filed by Pt. Nawin Sharma, Member Executive
Committee, Sky Enclave Gramin Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd (herein after referred to as the Samiti),
60 Jaipur House Market, Agra against Pankaj Kumar, Collector, Agra alleging wilful disobedience
of the order dated 06.01.2014 passed in Writ-C No.57803 of 2010.

3. It appears that the petitioner, as person authorised under a resolution of the Samiti, filed
Writ C No.57803 of 2010 alleging that the Samiti was owner in possession of land bearing Khasra
Nos.665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670 Mauja Patholi, Tehsil and District Agra in respect of which, the
Union of India issued a Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2007, under Sections 3 and 7 of the Works
of Defence Act, 1903 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), imposing restrictions upon the use and
enjoyment of the land being in the vicinity of Indian Air Force Station, Agra and its installation. It
was alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the Wing Commander, Air Force Station,
Agra issued a letter dated 28.01.2010 to the Vice Chairman, Agra Development Authority, Agra
intimating him to ensure that no departmental work is carried out over the land which was covered
by the notification. It was claimed that as the land of the Samiti was affected by the notification
therefore the Collector, Agra be directed to make an award for compensation in respect of the land,
under Section 12 of the Act. It was prayed that interest should also be paid on the compensation so
awarded from the date of imposition of such restriction up to the date of payment of the
compensation. In the said writ petition, it appears, despite opportunity given to the respondents, no
counter affidavit was filed. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 06.01.2014 with a
direction that in case the petitioner files an application before the Collector, Agra for compensation,
the Collector will proceed as per the provisions of Sections 9 and 12 of the Act and make an award
within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

4. The contempt application was filed alleging that despite having made a representation
claiming compensation, no award was passed by the Collector in compliance of the direction issued
by the writ court.

5. On 28.08.2014 notice was issued to the opposite party.

6. The opposite party filed an affidavit dated 27.10.2014 annexing therewith the order
dated 04.10.2010. It was stated in the affidavit that the claim for compensation in respect of plots in
question had already been adjudicated vide order dated 04.10.2010, pursuant to a previous direction
of this court dated 11.05.2010 passed in Writ C No.26577 of 2010, and the said order had neither
been challenged nor set aside by a competent court. It was further stated that another writ petition
No.66722 of 2010 was filed by the Samiti for passing an award under section 12 of the Act, which
was disposed of by order dated 09.07.2012 with a direction to the Collector to pass appropriate
order and in compliance of the direction given in the said writ petition, on 15.12.2012, the then
District Magistrate, Agra rejected the claim for compensation. It was further stated that against the
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 15.12.2012 writ petition No.20446 of 2013 was filed in which parties have exchanged
affidavits and the matter is pending consideration. It was further claimed that pursuant to the order
dated 06.01.2014 passed in Writ-C No.57803 of 2010 another order was passed on 30.09.2014,
thereby rejecting the claim. In the above background, it was claimed that the order of the writ court
has been substantially complied with.

7. It appears that the order that was passed by the District Magistrate, Agra pursuant to the
order passed by the writ court dated 06.01.2014 was not in the nature of an award, as was mandated
by the writ court, therefore, another supplementary compliance affidavit dated 20.01.2015 sworn
by Pankaj Kumar, District Magistrate, Agra was filed annexing therewith copy of an award dated
15.01.2015 by which zero compensation was awarded to the Samiti concerned on the ground that
the land of the Samiti was recorded as agricultural land and was to be used for agricultural purposes
and as by imposition of restrictions under the Act, no loss was caused to the Samiti, award of any
compensation under the Act was not required. While passing the said award, a report of the Wing
Commander, Deputy Chief Administration Officer, Agra was relied wherein it was mentioned that
plot nos.665 to 670 were agricultural land and that in respect of the said plots the Air Force had
never given any NOC nor any permission was obtained from the Agra Development Authority,
Agra for residential project.

8. Sri Shambhu Prasad Sharma, Secretary of the Samiti has filed an Application No.138820
of 2016, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which is supported by his own affidavit, for lodging of
complaint before a Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agra against the opposite party for
having committed an offence punishable under section 193 IPC. It is alleged in the said application/
affidavit that a false compliance affidavit has been filed and false statement has been made in the
award that never any 'No Objection Certificate' was granted by the Air Force for development of
the plots in question. In support of his contention, Sri Shambhu Nath Sharma has invited attention
of the Court to Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 340
Cr.P.C. Annexure No.5 is a letter issued by Sanyukt Niyojak, Sambhagiya Niyojan Khand, Nagar
and Gram Niyojan Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh, Nagar Mahapalika Bhawan, Agra to the Secretary of the
Samiti thereby informing that the area where plot nos.159, 165, 176, 203 at Village Pitholi, Tehsil
and District Agra are located is earmarked to be used for residential purpose in the master plan.
Attention of the Court has also been invited to a letter dated 08.04.1996 (Annexure No.6 to the
affidavit) issued by the Assistant Urban Planner, Agra Development Authority, Agra to the Samiti
thereby informing that plot nos.157 to 170 and 174 to 204 fall in the residential zone-I whereas plot
nos. 171, 173, 206 fall in the residential zone-II and that plot nos.161, 175, 179, 187, 205 would be
Chakroad, as per the land used earmarked in the Agra Master Plan. Attention of the Court has also
been invited to a letter dated 07.01.1989 (Annexure No.7 to the affidavit) sent by D.P. Sharma, Flt.
Lt., on behalf of the Air Force Commanding Officer, to the Assistant Engineer, Agra Development
Authority, Agra in the context of issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' stating therein that in
reference to letter dated 29th October, 1988 'No Objection Certificate' is being issued to the
Development Authority for construction of commercial/residential accommodation as per the
colony plan submitted by the Samiti to the Headquarters subject to certain conditions. Relying on
the aforesaid documents, Sri S.P. Sharma has submitted that all these documents would go to show
5 All. Pt. Nawin Sharma Vs Mr. Pankaj Kumar, I.A.S., Collector Agra

1087
that the land in question, which belongs to the Samiti, was to be used for residential purpose and
the observation in the award that the said land was to be used for agriculture purpose is nothing but
false and false to the own knowledge of the Collector, who has sworn the affidavit of compliance
and, therefore, is guilty of perjury and, as such, is liable to be proceeded for offence of perjury.

9. In response to the above submissions, Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, who appears on behalf of
the contemnor-opposite party, submits that while passing the award due opportunity of hearing was
given to the office bearers of the Samiti and the documents, which have been placed before this
Court, were considered by the officer while passing the award and the while passing the award, the
Officer has taken notice of the fact that the alleged 'No Objection Certificate', which was set up by
the Samiti to sustain its claim, related to different plot numbers than those for which the writ
petition No.57803 of 2010 was filed, inasmuch as, the said writ petition was in respect of plot
nos.665 to 670 whereas 'No Objection Certificate' related to different plot numbers. It has thus been
submitted that the allegation that the statement made in the award was based on false facts, which
were false to the own knowledge of the officer, is not correct. He has further submitted that it is not
in dispute that the land in question, at present, is being used for agriculture purpose and no
possession of the said land has been taken, therefore, once it is proved that it was being used only
for agriculture purpose, no loss could have been caused to the Samiti on restrictions being imposed
under the Act and, as such, the zero compensation award passed by the Collector cannot be said to
be in gross violation of the direction issued by this Court. It has been submitted that this Court had
only directed the officer to pass an award and there was no adjudication of the rights of the
claimant and there was also no observation with regards to the correctness of the claim of the
claimant and accordingly it was open for the officer to adjudicate and take a decision, which the
officer took in good faith by passing an order in compliance of the order passed by the writ court
and, as such, the contempt proceeding as well as the application to lodge complaint for perjury is
not sustainable.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the applicant as well as by the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnor opposite party. From the
record it appears that the documents on which the applicant places reliance for moving an
application to lodge complaint of perjury disclose different plot numbers than the plot numbers on
which the claim was based in the writ petition.

11. Whether the plot numbers for which 'No Objection Certificate' was granted by the
authority concerned related to the old numbers of the plots in respect of which the writ petition was
filed is a matter which requires adjudication but there is no adjudication on that aspect by a
competent court of law.

12. As this Court by its order dated 06.01.2014 had only directed the Collector to pass an
award without dealing with any of the issues on merits, the act of passing an award by the opposite
party, even though it may be a zero compensation award, cannot be said to be a contumacious
conduct of the opposite party because he has given his own reasons to sustain the award and it has
been passed on the basis of his own assessment of the facts and law, therefore, it would not amount
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to willful disobedience of the direction given by the writ court. It is well settled that where pursuant
to a direction of the writ court some decision is taken by the authority concerned, it gives a fresh
cause of action which can be used by the aggrieved party to take recourse to appropriate legal
proceeding. In such a case, the contempt court must not ordinarily enter into examining the
correctness of the decision of the authority unless the said decision is in gross violation of the
guidelines laid in the direction given to the authority for taking a decision. As, in the instant case,
the writ court had not directed the opposite party to take a decision in a particular manner, by
taking a decision on the basis of his own understanding of fact and law, the opposite party did not
violate the order of the writ court. Therefore I do not find any good ground to continue with the
contempt proceeding.

13. So far as the claim of the applicant that the opposite party is guilty of perjury is
concerned, suffice to say that mere making of an incorrect statement does not amount to making of
a false statement. There is a difference between a false statement and an incorrect statement. A
false statement is one which the proponent of the statement is aware that it is incorrect. According
to Black's Law Dictionary false statement mean an incorrect statement made or acquiesced in with
knowledge of incorrectness or with reckless indifference to actual facts and with no reasonable
ground to believe it correct. They mean more than erroneous or untrue and import intention to
deceive. Similarly in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, false statement has been
defined as a statement knowingly false, or made recklessly without honest belief in its truth, and
with purpose to mislead or deceive. An incorrect statement made or acquiesced in with knowledge
of incorrectness or with reckless indifference to actual facts and with no reasonable ground to
believe it correct. Such are more than erroneous or untrue and import intention to deceive.
Accordingly, merely if a statement is incorrect would not make it false unless it can be
demonstrated that its proponent was aware that it was incorrect or it was made with reckless
indifference to actual facts and with no reasonable ground to believe it to be correct.

14. Coming to the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the Collector
(opposite party herein) while passing the award was aware that the statement which he was making
in the award was false to his own knowledge or that he did not believe that the statement which he
was making was not correct. Basis of the application, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., is the 'No
Objection Certificate' and the documents which have been placed by the applicant before the Court
that relate to the period 1989 onwards. Those certificates relate to plot numbers that find no
mention in the writ petition. Whether those plot numbers are the old numbers of the plots
mentioned in the writ petition or not becomes a matter of evidence which has apparently not been
placed before the authority at the time he passed the award and, therefore, it cannot be said that
authority while passing the award had made any false statement which may warrant proceeding for
perjury.

15. In view of the above, no further action is required in these contempt proceedings. The
contempt application is consigned to the record. The notices are discharged. The Application
No.138820 of 2016, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., is rejected with liberty to the applicant to challenge
5 All. Dwarika Prasad Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1089
the correctness of the award before the appropriate court/ forum as may be available to him under
the law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition / Writ C No.- 24089 Of 2016

Dwarika Prasad
 ...petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Vipin Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri S.D. Sahai

SARFAESI ACT, 2002 - S. 13(8) - RIGHT OF REDEMPTION - SCOPE & STAGE OF
EXTINGUISHMENT

- Borrower/guarantor retains right to redeem secured asset by tendering full dues "before the date fixed for
sale/transfer" - Once, sale is completed and sale certificate presented for registration, right of redemption
stands extinguished.
Held, S. 13(8) grants right to tender dues before "date fixed for sale/transfer" and mandates that in such
event the secured asset shall not be sold/transferred and no further steps shall be taken. (Paras 7 & 8)

MORTGAGE LAW - EQUITY OF REDEMPTION - EXTINCTION - WHEN IT CEASES

- Equity of redemption not extinguished by mere auction or contract for sale - Continues until execution and
completion of sale by registered conveyance - Principle under TPA S. 60 applies to SARFAESI
transactions.(Para 9).

SARFAESI ACT - AUCTION SALE - SALE CERTIFICATE - EFFECT OF PRESENTATION FOR
REGISTRATION

- Confirmation of sale + execution & presentation of sale certificate completes sale process - Guarantor
cannot seek redemption thereafter.(Paras 3, 12 & 13)

WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ART. 226 - INTERFERENCE IN SARFAESI PROCEEDINGS

- No interference when remedy lies before DRT and no pleading of violation of Act/Rules - Mere willingness
to pay dues after completion of sale does not confer enforceable right-Petitioner neither pleaded nor