A decree obtained under Land Acquisition Act is an executable decree and no contempt can be maintained for non-compliance with such decree: Supreme Court of India
The weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code by itself and lays down detailed procedure for the acquisition of land, payment of compensation, and common law principles of justice, equity and good conscience cannot be extended contrary to provisions of the Statute. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court before Hon’ble Justice R. Subhash Reddy &amp; Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy in the matter of M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull vs Sri Brijesh Mehrotra &amp; Ors [CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.726­728 OF 2017]. 
The facts of the case were that land admeasuring 29.38 acres belonging to the petitioner were acquired under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued at the first instance on 25.03.1981. Pursuant to abovesaid notification, possession of the land along with the structures was taken on 20.08.1981. Said land was subsequently declared as a protected forest under Section 29 of the   Indian Forest Act, 1927.  Notification to that effect was issued under Indian Forest Act on 04.09.1990. As no award was passed pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.05.1995 and there was also further notification to the same effect on 17.08.1996. When the subsequent notification was issued, the same was challenged before the High Court. The said writ petition was allowed in the year 1998. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the latest notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act respondents have not invoked the urgency clause at all.  When the notification was issued under Section 11 of the 2013   Act,   without invoking the urgency clause, the question of extending the benefits as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act will not arise.

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar  &amp;  Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 291 wherein it was held that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of directions issued by this Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused.  It is further observed that discretion given to the court in dealing with the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of law and further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is between contemner and the court.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the case were that land admeasuring 29.38 acres belonging to the petitioner were acquired under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued at the first instance on 25.03.1981. Pursuant to abovesaid notification, possession of the land along with the structures was taken on 20.08.1981. Said land was subsequently declared as a protected forest under Section 29 of the   Indian Forest Act, 1927.  Notification to that effect was issued under Indian Forest Act on 04.09.1990. As no award was passed pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.05.1995 and there was also further notification to the same effect on 17.08.1996. When the subsequent notification was issued, the same was challenged before the High Court. The said writ petition was allowed in the year 1998.  
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the latest notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act respondents have not invoked the urgency clause at all.  When the notification was issued under Section 11 of the 2013   Act,   without invoking the urgency clause, the question of extending the benefits as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act will not arise.

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar  &amp;  Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 291 wherein it was held that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of directions issued by this Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused.  It is further observed that discretion given to the court in dealing with the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of law and further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is between contemner and the court.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the latest notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act respondents have not invoked the urgency clause at all.  When the notification was issued under Section 11 of the 2013   Act,   without invoking the urgency clause, the question of extending the benefits as per Section 40 of the 2013 Act will not arise. 
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar  &amp;  Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 291 wherein it was held that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of directions issued by this Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused.  It is further observed that discretion given to the court in dealing with the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of law and further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is between contemner and the court.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar  &amp;  Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 291 wherein it was held that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of directions issued by this Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused.  It is further observed that discretion given to the court in dealing with the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of law and further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is between contemner and the court. 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal in view of the above.
C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 These contempt petitions are filed under Section 12 of Constitution of India and Rule 3(C) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court 1975 alleging that respondents have wilfully and deliberately violated C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 The land admeasuring 29.38 acres belonging to the petitioner situated at Bhagalpur Bihar was acquired under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894will apply as much C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 Section 6 of the Act pursuant to subsequent notification. The and the respondent­State was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or to take any other action available Alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the directions issued in the aforesaid order passed on 17.08.2015 earlier contempt petitions were filed in Contempt Petition(C) Nos.726­ 2013 Act the contempt petitions were disposed of vide order “It has been submitted by the learned senior to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 survive and therefore the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 The respondent­State has subsequently filed I.A.Nos.28­30 of We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan learned senior advocates appearing for the wilfully the series of directions issued by this Court. It is urgency clause and inspite of directions for payment of to Section 40 of the 2013 Act and by treating the land as acquired was used for construction of office and residential C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 buildings and inspite of the same contrary to various directions issued by this Court land is treated as agricultural forest land a concept unknown to law. It is submitted that when the applications were filed for correction of the order dated Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents case of the respondents that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 17.08.2015 a fresh made on behalf of the State that a fresh notification would be left open all the issues. It is stated that in view of the order under Section 11 of the 2013 Act and after following the C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 there was no violation of any directions issued by the Court the determination of compensation it is always open for the petitioner to avail remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act Without availing such remedy under guise of contempt In the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10394­10396 of 2011 while quashing the acquisition proceedings on the ground that proceedings were in the Act respondent­State was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or to take any other action available under law. Consequent to abovesaid order dated 17.08.2015 respondents have issued fresh notification on 14.11.2015 C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 notification was issued thereafter on 14.02.2020. Pursuant to notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on 14.02.2020 award inquiry was conducted. Petitioner has filed In view of the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by this dated 12.11.2020 it cannot be said that respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated same is pending. With regard to submission of Dr. Singhvi learned senior counsel that the respondents have not granted 2013 Act without invoking urgency clause the question of C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 arise. In the judgment in the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Kumar appearing for the respondents it is observed by this cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum Further in the judgment of the Court in the case of Delhi equity and good conscience cannot be extended contrary to provisions of the Statute. In the judgment in the case of R.N that a decree obtained under Land Acquisition Act is an that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or 16 SCC 291 25 SCC 339 34 SCC 400 C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 law and further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the 2013 Act on 14.02.2020 and the award passed by the deliberately and intentionally violated any directions issued by this Court attracting the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Though detailed submissions were advanced by the value while it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedies directions issued by this Court. Section 64 of the 2013 Act C.P(C).Nos.726 7217 the award by written application to the Collector may seek 66 of the 2013 Act. Even after adjudication made by such aforesaid reasons these contempt petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. We make it clear that we have not on the determination of market value in the award dated