# Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 957
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-12-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997
- **Bench:** M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chaduranga-kanthraj-urs-and-anr-v-p-ravi-kumar-and-ors-37929
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024
passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the
respondents/contemnors.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Court - Disobedience of Order - Willful
Disobedience:
Held: In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that
disobedience of the order is 'wilful' - It means knowingly-intentional,
conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of
consequences flowing therefrom - It would exclude casual,
accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and
would also not include involuntary or negligent actions - The
deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is
doing and intends to do the same - It is too well settled that if two
interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious,
a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. [Para 1.10]
Contempt of Court - Execution of decree - Alternate remedy:
Held: The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of
the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative
remedy in law is provided for - The paramount consideration is
given to maintain court's dignity and majesty of law. [Para 1.11]
Contempt of Court - Wilful disobedience - Action in disregard:
Held: The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of
a decision of this Court - What would be relevant is the "wilful
* Author
1288
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
disobedience" - Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard
to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a
deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can
be clutched. [Para 1.12]
Contempt of Court - Allegation of wilful disobedience of the
Orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed
by this Court:
Held: A plain reading of the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022
would indicate that direction issued to the respondents is to the
effect that TDR had to be issued as per TDR rules - There was
no ambiguity or vagueness in the said orders - It is also not the
case of the contemnors that any doubt being there in the said
orders - The respondents seem to have dragged their feet and for
no justifiable reason whatsoever have not implemented the said
orders - Thus, explicitly there has been wilful disobedience of orders
of this Court and respondents having failed in their attempt to seek
modification of order dated 21.11.2014 cannot take umbrage under
any circumstances whatsoever for not implementing the orders of
this Court, particularly when clarification/modification prayer was put
to rest on 17.05.2022 by this Court - In fact, this Court by Order
dated 19.03.2024 with the hope that respondents would purge in the
contempt by implementing the same in its letter & spirit had directed
compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 - An
additional condition was imposed or in other words orders dated
21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 was tweaked by this Court - A valiant
attempt has been made by the contemnors to contend that orders
of this Court has been complied by passing of the order dated
15.03.2024 and issuance of consequential notices and Government
Orders - In the notices issued on 10.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 the
authorities seems to be projecting a picture that the possession
of the subject land has not been delivered and this is nothing but
suppressing the true facts and making a false statement before
this Court namely suppressio veri suggestio falsi - The State and
its authorities have no doubt dragged their feet in implementing
the orders of the Court - However, there seems to be thin line
of doubt which has arisen in the mind of State and its authorities
as regards the valuation and in this direction if steps have been
taken to protect the interest of the revenue and several meetings
have been held and these aspects are placed before the State
Cabinet and a decision has been taken by the State cabinet, it
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1289
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Ku

## Text

_Characters 0–39,966 of 74,226. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39966 for what follows._

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1287 : 2024 INSC 957
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr.
v.
P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 688 of 2021)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997)
10 December 2024
[M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024
passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the
respondents/contemnors.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Court - Disobedience of Order - Willful
Disobedience:
Held: In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that
disobedience of the order is 'wilful' - It means knowingly-intentional,
conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of
consequences flowing therefrom - It would exclude casual,
accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and
would also not include involuntary or negligent actions - The
deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is
doing and intends to do the same - It is too well settled that if two
interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious,
a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. [Para 1.10]
Contempt of Court - Execution of decree - Alternate remedy:
Held: The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of
the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative
remedy in law is provided for - The paramount consideration is
given to maintain court's dignity and majesty of law. [Para 1.11]
Contempt of Court - Wilful disobedience - Action in disregard:
Held: The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of
a decision of this Court - What would be relevant is the "wilful
* Author
1288
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
disobedience" - Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard
to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a
deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can
be clutched. [Para 1.12]
Contempt of Court - Allegation of wilful disobedience of the
Orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed
by this Court:
Held: A plain reading of the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022
would indicate that direction issued to the respondents is to the
effect that TDR had to be issued as per TDR rules - There was
no ambiguity or vagueness in the said orders - It is also not the
case of the contemnors that any doubt being there in the said
orders - The respondents seem to have dragged their feet and for
no justifiable reason whatsoever have not implemented the said
orders - Thus, explicitly there has been wilful disobedience of orders
of this Court and respondents having failed in their attempt to seek
modification of order dated 21.11.2014 cannot take umbrage under
any circumstances whatsoever for not implementing the orders of
this Court, particularly when clarification/modification prayer was put
to rest on 17.05.2022 by this Court - In fact, this Court by Order
dated 19.03.2024 with the hope that respondents would purge in the
contempt by implementing the same in its letter & spirit had directed
compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 - An
additional condition was imposed or in other words orders dated
21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 was tweaked by this Court - A valiant
attempt has been made by the contemnors to contend that orders
of this Court has been complied by passing of the order dated
15.03.2024 and issuance of consequential notices and Government
Orders - In the notices issued on 10.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 the
authorities seems to be projecting a picture that the possession
of the subject land has not been delivered and this is nothing but
suppressing the true facts and making a false statement before
this Court namely suppressio veri suggestio falsi - The State and
its authorities have no doubt dragged their feet in implementing
the orders of the Court - However, there seems to be thin line
of doubt which has arisen in the mind of State and its authorities
as regards the valuation and in this direction if steps have been
taken to protect the interest of the revenue and several meetings
have been held and these aspects are placed before the State
Cabinet and a decision has been taken by the State cabinet, it
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1289
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
cannot be construed or held that State is not willing to implement
the order and particularly in the background of several orders
having been passed though not in consonance with the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 - Hence, this Court deems it
proper to extend one final opportunity to report compliance within a
time frame - Since, the State and its authorities have intentionally
dragged its feet for long number of years and having attempted
to tap all the mirage remedies and left with no other option and
to stave off these proceedings have passed the orders dated
15.03.2024, 22.04.2024, 24.05.2024 and 10.06.2024 to utilise the
subject land for road widening, fixing the extent to which each of
the claimants would be entitled for compensation and to issue the
TDR on an estimate value which is not accepted by this Court, still
an opportunity to issue TDR's as per market value as envisaged
under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ought to be extended to the
respondents/contemnors - Hence, the respondent authorities
directed to issue the TDR as per the value noticed by the Court in
favour of the respective claimants - It is also explicitly made clear
that the order dated 19.03.2024 to the extent of imposing additional
conditions is hereby recalled, as it is diametrically opposite to the
order dated 17.05.2022 and 21.11.2014 - The directions issued
under Orders dated: 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 to be complied by
the competent authority of BBMP. [Paras 5.3, 10, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25]
Case Law Cited
Sudhir Vasudeva v. George Ravishekeran [2014) 4 SCR 27 :
(2014) 3 SCC 373; Rita Markanday v. Surjit Singh Arora [1996]
Supp. 7 SCR 56 : (1996) 6 SCC 14; Rama Narang v. Ramesh
Narang [2021] 1 SCR 389 : (2021) 15 SCC 338; Ram kishan v.
Tarun Bajaj & Ors [2014] 1 SCR 538 : (2014) 16 SCC 204; All
Bengal Excise Licensees Associationv. Raghabendra Singh and
Others [2007] 3 SCR 816 : (2007) 11 SCC 374 - referred to.
List of Acts
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
List of Keywords
Suppressio Veri Suggestio Falsi; Lex non cogit ad impossibilia;
Bonafide; Malafide; Government Orders; Contempt; Modification;
1290
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Contempt; Compliance; Compensation; Financial Hardship; Wilful
Disobedience; Disobedience of order; Alternate remedy; Action in
disregard; Knowledge of consequence.
Case Arising From
INHERENT APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)
No. 688 of 2021
In
Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and
19.03.2024 of the Supreme Court of India
With
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 578 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 3305
of 1997, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 716 of 2023 in Civil Appeal
No. 3307 of 1997 with Interlocutory Application No. 39734 of 2023,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 555 of 2024 In Civil Appeal No. 3310
of 1997, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 556 of 2024 in Civil Appeal
No. 3309 of 1997, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 585 of 2024 in
Civil Appeal No. 3306 of 1997
Appearances for Parties
C. Aryama Sundaram, Dhruv Mehta, Aditya Sondhi, Gopal
Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Advs., T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar,
Subham Kothari, Bharathi Subramanian, Bharathi Subramaniayan,
Keith Varghese, Prashant, Anoop Krishna, Ms. Nayana Tara Bg,
Rajat Sehgal, Mrs. Vandana Anand, Ms. Bina Madhavan, S. Udaya
Kumar Sagar, P. Balaji Verma, Tushar Singh, Katubadi Ismail (for
M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co.), Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Mrs. Lalita
Kaushik, Abhay Kumar, Manu Nair, Neelabh Shreesh, Aryan Roy,
S. S. Shroff, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Shashi Kiran Shetty, AG, Nishanth Patil, A.A.G., Dama Seshadri
Naidu, Sr. Advs., V. N. Raghupathy, Adithya Bhat, Ms. Adoorya
Bomakka Harish, Ayush P. Shah, Vignesh Adithiya S, Pai Amit,
Kushal Dube, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Tathagata Dutta, Abhiyudaya
Vats, Nikhil Pahwa, Ssahel Sood, Abhinav Thakur, Mayank Jain,
Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Tarun, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Pramod Dayal,
Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1291
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.
1.
Alleging wilful disobedience of the Orders dated 21.11.2014,
17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court, these contempt
petitions have been filed for punishing the respondents for their
alleged contumacious act.
1.1 For purposes of convenience the contempt petitions which
have been filed with details appended thereto are tabulated
herein below:
Serial
No.
CONTEMPT
PETITION No.
COMPLAINANT/S
RESPONDENT/S
ORDER ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN FILED
1
CP. No. 688
of 2021 in
C.A. NO. 3309
-3310 /1997
Chaduranga
Kanthraj Urs and
Anr.
Shri P. Ravi
Kumar and Ors.
Order dt. 21.11.2014
passed in I.A. No. 13 of
2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997.
2
CP. No.
578/2022 in
C.A. No. 3305
of 1997
Chamundi Hotel
Private Limited
Smt. Vandita
Sharma and Ors.
Order dt. 21.11.2014
passed in I.A. No. 13 of
2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997.
ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
iii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in
CP No. 578 of 2022.
3
CP. No. 716 of
2023 in C.A.
No. 3307 of
1997
M.L Varchusvin
S.S. Raje Urs.
Smt Vandita
Sharma and Ors.
i. Order dt. 21.11.2014
passed in I.A. No. 13 of
2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997.
ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
4
CP. No. 555 of
2024 in C.A.
No. 3310 of
1997 and C.P.
688 of 2021
Chaduranga
Kanthraj Urs and
Anr.
Dr. Rajneesh
Goel and Ors.
i.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
ii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in
CP No. 578 of 2022.
1292
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5
CP. No. 556 of
2024 in C.A.
No. 3309 of
1997
Smt. Indrakshi Devi Rajneesh Goel
and Ors.
i.Order dt. 21.11.2014
passed in I.A. No. 13 of
2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997.
ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
6
C.P No. 585 of
2024 in C.A.
No. 3306 of
1997
Kamakshi Devi
Avaru
Rajneesh Goel
and ors.
i.Order dt. 21.11.2014
passed in I.A. No. 13 of
2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997.
ii.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
The aforestated analogous petitions are taken up together
and disposed of by this Common Order as they involve facts
in common.
1.2 The petitioners in the aforestated contempt petitions have
contended that the order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022,
including the order dated 19.03.2024 is clear and explicit
whereunder the respondent authorities have been directed
by this Court to issue TDR as per TDR Rules in favour of the
respective land owners whose land has been acquired for
widening of Bellary and Jayamahal Roads and yet respondents
have failed to do so and thereby they have wilfully disobeyed the
directions and orders passed by this Court. It is also contended
that though Bengaluru Development Authority (for short BDA)
and Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (for short BBMP)
on the one hand were taking steps to issue TDR by calling for
information from the petitioners, on the other hand Government
of Karnataka passed an Order on 23.02.2021 expressing its
difficulty to implement the orders of this Court on the ground
of financial hardship being caused to exchequer which itself
is clear wilful disobedience. It is also contended that State
has taken the benefit flowing from the order dated 21.11.2014
and utilized the land owned by petitioners to widen the roads
and has issued the Government Order dated 08.12.2022
after dismissal of the IA for modification on 17.05.2022, which
amounts to over reaching the orders of this Court. It is also
contended that the positive direction issued by this Court to
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1293
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
the respondents to issue TDR as per TDR rules in favour of
complainants had not been complied which not only undermine
the dignity of this Court but also the authority of this Court. It is
further contended that market value determined for the subject
land for issuing TDR by no stretch of imagination can be the
market value prescribed under the provisions of Karnataka Town
and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules, 2016.
It is also submitted that contemnors in the IA No.98276 of 2021
had filed for modification of the order dated 21.11.2014 wherein
they have clearly admitted that in the event of TDR is to be
issued to the extent of 15 acres 39 guntas as per the orders of
this Court which is the extent of land acquired by the BBMP for
widening of the roads, it would result in issuance of TDR valued
at Rs.1,396 crores as per TDR rules and yet determined the
value under the notices dated 10.06.2024 diametrically opposite
to the stand already taken by them. Hence, contending that
respondents are acting in violation of the orders of this Court
wilfully and as such they are liable to be proceeded with and
punished for wilful disobedience of the order dated 21.11.2014,
17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024.
1.3 On being notified contesting respondents have filed affidavits
of compliance in the respective petitions. Shri Jairam N.,
Commissioner, BDA has stated that BBMP had proposed to
grant Development Rights Certificate (DRC/TDR) in lieu of
utilisation of Bengaluru Palace ground for "widening of Bellary
road from BDA junction to Mekhri Circle" and in this regard
the BBMP has issued the provisional acceptance order dated
07.06.2024 and in response to the recommendations by the
BBMP, the BDA has approved the issuance of DRC/TDR on
10.06.2024 whereunder the details of the DRC has been
enumerated. It is further contended that same is in compliance
with the order dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024. It
is further stated that as per the recommendations of the BBMP,
the petitioners have been served notice dated 10.06.2024 by
BDA calling upon them to hand over the physical possession
of the lands to the officials of BBMP, apart from informing them
to hand over personal bonds simultaneously, to enable them to
collect DRC. It is also stated that as indicated in the notice the
1294
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
officials of BBMP and BDA were present at Bengaluru Palace
grounds on the appointed date and time to take possession
of the lands, but petitioners had failed to appear and as such
a joint mazar was drawn on 18.06.2024 by noting physical
possession of the land was not taken and personal bonds was
not furnished by the petitioners.
1.4 It is further stated that one more opportunity was extended to
the petitioners to collect the approved DRC and a notice dated
26.06.2024 was issued in this regard and again the petitioners
had failed to appear on the appointed place and time for handing
over possession of the land. It is stated that possession of the
subject land was taken on 01.07.2024 and respective authorities
though were ready to handover DRC to the petitioners, they
failed to appear and receive the same. Hence, it is contended
that at no point of time the said respondent had any intention
to wilfully disobey the orders of this Court and have tendered
unconditional apology for the delay that has occasioned in
implementing the orders of this Court. Contending that delay was
neither deliberate or intentional they have prayed for dismissal
of the contempt petitions.
1.5 Mr. Tushar Giri Nath, Chief Commissioner, BBMP has filed an
affidavit of compliance dated 17.03.2024 stating thereunder that
in compliance of the order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022,
the Government of Karnataka through decision of Cabinet
decided on 14.03.2024 to utilise 15 acres 39 guntas namely
the subject land for road widening and also decided to issue
the TDR as per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning
Act, 1961 and the TDR Rules and in furtherance of the same
Government Order dated 15.03.2024 came to be issued. It is
further stated that as per the said Government Order the BBMP
would implement the orders of this Court by issuance of TDR/
DRC as per rules. It is further stated that out of 15 acres 39
guntas only an extent of 1,217.41 sq. meter has been actually
utilised for the road widening purposes and the entire land
would be utilised after issuance of DRC/TDR as per rules. It is
further stated that at no point of time the respondent had any
intention to wilfully disobey the orders of this Court and have
tendered unconditional apology for the delay in implementing
the orders of this Court.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1295
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
1.6 Sri Jairam N., Commissioner, BDA had initially filed counter
affidavit on 18.03.2024 in contempt petition No. 688 of
2021 contending thereunder that on the basis of the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 passed by this Court, the
Government of Karnataka had taken a decision on 14.03.2024 to
utilise 15 acres 39 guntas namely subject land for road widening
subject to grant of DRC/TDR and as such Government Order
dated 15.03.2024 came to be issued. It is further submitted
that BDA is the planning authority as per the KTP Act and said
authority would issue Development Rights Certificate-DRC after
receiving recommendation by the public authority. It is further
stated that at no point of time the contemnor had any intention
to wilfully disobey the orders passed by this Court.
1.7 The Chief Commissioner of BBMP has filed further affidavit
on 28.07.2024 in contempt petition No. 555-556 of 2024
narrating the sequential events culminating in the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 apart from narrating the
purported details about issuance of DRC/ TDR to the claimants.
The sum and substance of the narration is pursuant to the
orders passed by this Court, notices had been issued to the
petitioners and except Smt. Deepamalini Devi none of the
petitioners had turned up to hand over physical possession of
15 acres 17.5 guntas of land, as a result thereof another notice
dated 26.06.2024 came to be issued and on the appointed
date 01.07.2024 none had appeared and after identifying the
subject land i.e. 15 acres 17.5 guntas by metes and bonds
by the survey wing of the revenue department possession of
subject land was taken by BBMP on 01.07.2024. In paragraph
5 of the said affidavit the sequential events leading to the
issuance of DRC/TDR has been narrated and the summary
of the same is to the effect that the BDA was the authority to
issue/deal with Form No.3 and thereupon DRC/TDR and after
the amendment to the KTCP Act in 2021 the BBMP public
authority became the authority to issue/deal with form No.1
and 3 and after the amendment the matter stood transferred
to BBMP from BDA for further action as per the notification
dated 23.09.2022 and accordingly notice came to be issued
to the claimants on 21.03.2024. It is also stated that there
were exchange of correspondence between the BDA and
the claimants whereunder it is clearly admitted that 15 acres
1296
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
17.05 guntas is the land utilised/to be utilised for road widening
purposes based on the survey settlement dated 22.04.2024. It
is further stated that the Deputy Commissioner (TDR) BBMP
vide order dated 22.04.2024 after considering all the claims
and objections determined and finalised the extent of land
of various claimants. It is further stated that on the basis of
the request of BBMP the Government passed an order dated
24.05.2024 permitting BBMP to utilise the land ad measuring
15 acres 17.5 guntas for road widening and determined the
value of the land at Rs. 11 crores for the entire land covered
under the acquisition namely under BPAT and determined the
compensation of subject land in proportion to the same value for
issuance of DRC/TDR to be issued to the claimants. The Deputy
Commissioner (TDR) after considering the objections raised
to the order dated 24.05.2024 while rejecting the objections of
the claimants/petitioners by order dated 06.06.2024 held the
"market value" of the subject land cannot be beyond 2 lakhs
and as such applied the said value for issuance of TDR. In
other words, factor taken into consideration for determining
the market value of the subject land is on the premise that
land had stood vested with the State Government under the
BPAT whereunder the total value of the entire land has been
computed at Rs.11 crores namely for 472 acres 16 guntas and
proportionate value is to be considered for the subject land
which is the part of the larger extent and as such justifying
the order dated 06.06.2024, the notices were issued to the
petitioners/claimants to accept the DRC/TDR as per value
determined thereunder and contending orders of this Court
had been complied they have sought for contempt proceedings
being dropped or petitions being dismissed.
1.8 The complainant/petitioner in contempt petition No.716 of 2023
has filed a rejoinder/affidavit dated 08.07.2024 reiterating the
contentions raised in the contempt petitions and also contending
the development that have taken place pursuant to the order
dated 19.03.2024 and has highlighted the issue regarding
reduction of the extent of land and determination of the market
value at Rs. 120.68 per sq. meter as against the guidance
value of Rs. 2,83,500 (for Bellary Road) and 2,04,000 (for
Jay Mahal Road) per sq. metre as fixed under Section 45-B
of The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. It is also contended that
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1297
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
DRC/TDR which was forwarded through post and handed over
to the minor daughter of the first petitioner would not absolve
the liability of the respondents contemnors to comply with the
orders of this Court in substance.
1.9 The petitioner in contempt petition No.578 of 2022 has also
filed a rejoinder affidavit in response to counter affidavit filed
by respondent no.3 whereunder it has been contended that at
all relevant point of time and in various forum the ownership
rights over the subject land has been declared to be that of
the petitioner and as such there is no dispute with regard to
the ownership of the land and none of the legal heirs of Late
Shri SDN Wadiyar could object to it either. Contending that the
official respondents have failed to comply with the order dated
21.11.2014 the petitioner have sought for appropriate action
being taken against the respondents.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING:
Heard the arguments of the Learned Senior Advocates assisted
by the Learned Advocates for appearing parties, perused
the entire case papers and having bestowed our careful
consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are
of the view that following point would arise for our consideration
"Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and
19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully
disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors?"
PREFACE:
1.10 In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that
disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. It means knowinglyintentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full
knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude
casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine
inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent
actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he
knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too
well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the
action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not
be maintainable.
1298
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1.11 The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the
decree or implementation of an order for which alternative
remedy in law is provided for. The paramount consideration is
given to maintain court's dignity and majesty of law. In Sudhir
Vasudeva Vs. George Ravishekeran1 this Court has observed
that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders
in relation to which contempt has been alleged. That the Court
hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scope of its
enquiry to such directions which are explicit in the judgment or
orders of which contempt has been alleged.
1.12 The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of a
decision of this Court. What would be relevant is the "wilful
disobedience". Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard
to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is
a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction
can be clutched.
1.13 Having adumbrated position of law enumerated by this Court
we proceed to deal with the alleged acts of contempt said to
have been committed by the contemnors in the instant petitions.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2.
The background in which the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022
came to be passed can be succinctly narrated as under:
Undisputedly the land measuring 15 acres and 39 guntas (hereinafter
referred to as 'subject land') and the adjoining properties collectively
measuring 456 acres belonged to the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore.
The legal heirs of deceased Maharaja of Mysore amongst others
and/or claiming through them are before this Court alleging wilful
disobedience of the aforestated orders.
3.
The State enacted the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer)
Act 1996 (herein after referred to as "BPAT" Act) to acquire the
Bangalore Palace and adjacent land including all the buildings around
on the grounds enumerated therein. The constitutional validity of the
1
[2014) 4 SCR 27 : (2014) 3 SCC 373
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1299
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
same was unsuccessfully challenged by the legal heirs of Maharaja
of Mysore before the High Court of Karnataka and an ad interim
order of Stay of the operation of the Act came to be passed by the
High Court on 10.12.1996. On conclusion of hearing writ petitions
came to be dismissed vide Order dated 31.03.1997 and four weeks'
time was granted to the writ petitioners to file an appeal before
this Court and interim order granted on 10.12.1996 which was in
operation till disposal of the writ petitions came to be continued till
then. Subsequently, appeals came to be filed, and this Court by Order
dated 22.04.1997 granted stay of dispossession and the Special
Leave Petitions came to be admitted on 30.04.1997 and order of
status quo came to be passed pending disposal of the appeals. The
said appeals are pending before this Court.
4.
In Civil Appeal No. 3303 of 1997, an interlocutory application came
to be filed by the State of Karnataka seeking permission of this Court
to widen the Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road and to complete the
same by utilising 15 acres and 39 guntas of the Bengaluru Palace
ground; and, to pay compensation to the above land as per the
calculation made in the original award. Appellants in various appeals
virtually conceded to the needs of the State to widen the road and
expressed their willingness to accept the proposal of BBMP made in
its letter dated 26.12.2009, whereunder BBMP had agreed to issue
TDR for the extent of land acquired as per the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act and the TDR guidelines, subject to final decision
of this Court. Having regard to the fact that the State did not grant
its approval to the proposal mooted by the BBMP and had instead
offered to pay compensation as per the rates relevant at the time
of passing of the order, this Court disposed of the said application
by order dated 21.11.2014 and permitted the road widening subject
to the condition that the appellants would be given the TDR as per
TDR Rules. Order dated 21.11.2014 reads:
"10. In the above circumstances, having considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, including
learned counsel for the parties in all the connected appeals,
without prejudice to the rights of the parties, and keeping
in mind the necessity of widening of the road, and the
public interest, we think it just and proper to allow I.A.
No. 13 of 2011 subject to condition that the appellants in
1300
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the present appeal and the connected appeals shall be
given TDR for widening of the road as per TDR Rules."
(Emphasis Supplied by us)
5.
The respondent-authorities were required to implicitly implement the
aforesaid order or in other words issue TDR as per the extant TDR
rules. This Court in Rita Markanday v/s Surjit Singh Arora2 has
taken the view that even if the parties have not filed an undertaking
before the Court, but if the Court is induced to sanction a particular
course of action or inaction on the basis of the representation of
such a party and the Court ultimately finds that the party never
intended to act on such representation or such representation was
false then the party would be guilty of committing contempt of court.
In fact, this Court having heard the parties on merits and taking into
consideration the totality of circumstances into consideration had
passed a positive direction to the respondents to issue TDR a per
TDR Rules. However, under the guise of the said order requires
to be modified, a valiant attempt was made by the State after
Seven (7) years by filing an interlocutory application on 12.08.2021
in IA No.98276 of 2021 seeking modification of the order dated
21.11.2014 wherein it was specifically prayed that the order dated
21.11.2014 may be clarified or modified, with a further prayer to
direct the instrumentalities of the State to pay compensation as
per the calculation made in the original award in the Act of 1996
in similar terms of the order of this Court dated 15.02.1999 passed
in IA No.2.
5.1 Aforesaid application came to be rejected after adjudication
vide order dated 17.05.2022 whereunder this Court reiterated
its earlier order dated 21.11.2014 and observed there was no
reason to modify the said order. The Order dated 17.05.2022
reads:
"We have noticed from the order dated 21.11.2014
that this court has allowed the I.A. No. 13 of 2011
filed by the applicant subject to the condition that the
appellants will be given TDR for widening of the road
as per the TDR Rules. We do not see any reason to
2
[1996] Supp. 7 SCR 56 : (1996) 6 SCC 14
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1301
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
modify the said order. It is for the applicant(s) to
take action in terms of the order dated 21.11.2014.
The I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 stands rejected."
(emphasis supplied by us)
5.2 This Court in Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang,3 has held
that contempt jurisdiction could be invoked in every case where
the conduct of a contemnor is such as would interfere with the
due course of justice.
5.3 This Court exercising contempt jurisdiction would not enter
into question which have not been dealt with and decided in
the judgment or order, violation of which is complained by the
applicant. This Court will consider whether the direction issued
in the judgment or order is complied in true sense or in its letter
and spirit and would not embark upon the journey of examining
as to what the judgment or order should have contained.
The primary concern would be as to whether there has been
deliberate default or if there is any ambiguity in the directions
issued therein, in which event it would be better to direct the
parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for
clarification instead of clutching the contempt jurisdiction. A
plain reading of the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022
supra would indicate that direction issued to the respondents
is to the effect that TDR had to be issued as per TDR rules.
There was no ambiguity or vagueness in the said orders. It is
also not the case of the contemnors that any doubt being there
in the said orders.
5.4 However, on the basis of an assumed doubt having arisen in
the mind of the State that too after seven years of the passing
of the order (dated 21.11.2014) and to stave off the impending
contempt proceedings, an Interlocutory Application I.A. No.
98276 of 2021 referred to supra came to be filed for modification
of the said order dated 21.11.2014 primarily on the ground of
financial hardship amongst other grounds, which came to be
rejected.
3
[2021] 1 SCR 389 : (2021) 15 SCC 338
1302
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5.5 It is apt and appropriate to note at this juncture itself that a
specific plea came to be raised by the State in paragraph 9 of
the aforesaid application, that if the TDR certificate is issued
as per the order dated 21.11.2014 to the extent of 15 acres 39
guntas the notional value of the same would be Rs.1,396 crores.
At the cost of burdening this order the relevant plea raised by
the respondent in that regard is extracted herein below:
"9. The Respondents/Applicant-State of Karnataka
respectfully submits that area of land sought to be
acquired vide I.A. No. 13/2011 is an extent of 15 acres
39 guntas. If the compensation was required to be paid
in terms of the Award passed under the Act of 1996 for
the extent of 15 acres 39 guntas, the compensation
payable would be Rs.37,28,813. However, if the TDR
certificate is to be issued for the said extent of
15 acres 39 guntas, it would result in 13,91,742
Sq. ft. additional built up area constructible in the
city of Bengaluru and approximately it would be
equivalent to notional value of Rs.1,396 crores.
It is also relevant to note that TDR once granted is
transferable. If the appellants were to be given TDR,
the same may immediately be transferred by the
appellants to any other parties/ builders. In event of
the final judgment going against the appellants, then
it would not be possible to recover the value of TDR
from the appellants."
(Emphasis Supplied by us)
6.
On passing of the aforesaid order dated 17.05.2022 it was incumbent
upon the respondents-authorities to implement the aforesaid two
orders without a demur as they are crystal clear. However, same
was conveniently ignored or in other words the authorities seem to
have gone into deep sleep at least till 05.04.2017 on which date a
notification came to be issued by BBMP for carrying out the work
of widening the road.
7.
One another factor which cannot go unnoticed in the background of
affidavits filed by both the parties is, that in respect of the subject
property, Writ Petitions in Public Interest had also been filed seeking
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1303
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
widening of Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road before the High
Court of Karnataka wherein several orders came to be passed by
referring to the orders passed by this Court referred to supra, of
which contempt is alleged. Hence, we deem it proper to refer to the
order dated 07.09.2016 passed in W.P. No. 42927 of 2015 which
would have direct bearing on the present proceedings and it reads:
"We, therefore, direct the State Government to grant
necessary clearance to the BBMP for widening the road
and issue TDR certificates to the land owners in terms
of the Order of the Supreme Court of India as per the
existing TDR rules.
We trust and hope that the widening of the road will be
completed within a year."
(Emphasis supplied by us)
8.
For complying the aforesaid direction an attempt was made to issue
notification dated 05.04.2017 namely to carry out the widening of
Jayamahal Road from Mekhri Circle up to Cantonment Railway Station
and Bellary Road from BDA Junction to Mekhri Circle. After two (2)
years i.e., on 17.07.2019, the State Government issued a Government
Order permitting BBMP to issue TDR to the concerned land owners.
Hence, a communication dated 29.08.2019 was addressed by the
complainants to the Commissioner BBMP seeking to expedite the
process of issuance of TDR and documents in support of their claim
were also forwarded. However, TDR's were not issued for no reason
at all. Thus, from 21.11.2014 till 17.07.2019 there was absolute
silence on the part of contemnors and there is not even a whisper
in the affidavits filed by the respondents in this regard viz., as to
the reason for non-implementation of the Order dated 21.11.2014.
Knowing fully, the consequences of non-implementing the orders of
this Court, yet respondents consciously ignored to comply with the
directions issued by this Court. After four (4) years notification came
to be issued on 05.04.2017 to widen the road. Again, respondents
went into deep slumber for two (2) years i.e., till 17.07.2019 date
of government order issued resolving to issue TDR in favour of
landowners. Silence on the part of the contemnors from 05.04.2017
to 17.07.2019 has to be termed as deliberate with full knowledge
of consequences flowing therefrom. Thus, delay of five (5) years in
1304
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
implementation of the Order dated 21.11.2014 till 17.07.2019 not only
remains unexplained but also prima-facie seems to be intentional
and not bonafide or there being any genuine inability and this is
the first stage of intentional delay. This Court in Ram kishan Vs.
Tarun Bajaj & Ors4 has opined that deliberate conduct of a person
means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same.
Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on
his part. Though Government Order dated 17.07.2019 came to be
issued, that too after five (5) years after passing of orders (direction)
by this Court to issue TDR's, yet it did not fructify. Thus, irresistible
conclusion will have to be drawn that non-implementation of the
orders of this Court was deliberate and intentional act on the part
of contemnors.
9.
From the pleadings of these proceedings it would also emerge, yet
another Writ Petition No. 6585 of 2020 (PIL) had also been filed
for expediting the process for road widening and an order came to
be passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 07.01.2021 in that
regard whereunder the State Government was directed to report
the compliance by implementing with the directions contained in
paragraph 10 of this Court's Order dated 21.11.2014 and paragraph
12 of High Court Order dated 07.09.2016 passed in Writ Petition
No. 42927 of 2015 and for reporting such compliance, the State
Government was granted time till 15.02.2021. State Government was
also called upon to produce records and documents depicting grant
of TDR certificates in terms of the order of this Court as well as the
order of the High Court. However, the State Government instead of
complying with the Orders passed by this Court and the High Court
and initially having made a show of its earnestness to comply with
the order, had submitted before the High Court in Writ Petition No.
6585 of 2020 on 17.02.2021 through the learned Advocate General
that it would move this Court seeking modification of the Order
dated 21.11.2014. Thus, Government Order came to be issued
on 23.02.2021 wherein it has been stated that State Cabinet had
decided to resile from its earlier decisions taken on 11.07.2019 vide
Subject No. C435/2019 (pursuant to which the State Government
had issued Government Order dated 17.07.2019 bearing No. MA.AA.
EE.-MNY/2018 permitting issuance of TDR) and had resolved to file
4
[2014] 1 SCR 538 : 2014 (16) SCC 204 para 12
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1305
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
an application for modification of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and
pursuant to the decision so taken, I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 came to be
filed in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997 and connected appeals by the State of
Karnataka on 12.08.2021 as already noted hereinabove. The present
contempt petitions came to be filed on 17.08.2021 and this Court
by Order dated 03.01.2022 directed the listing of these contempt
petitions along with I.A. No.