Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siddhappa Dhondappa Kamshetti, filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an order dated 30.9.1998 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1075 of 1997. The court had directed the respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and various officers, to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within three months and complete the acquisition proceedings by paying compensation within nine months from the date of the earlier order dated 2.2.1998. The petitioner claimed that despite these specific directions, the land acquisition proceedings were not concluded, constituting wilful breach. However, when the contempt petition came up for hearing on 18.2.2005, the petitioner was absent. The court noted that the petition had been pending since 1998 and that the petitioner had not appeared to prosecute the matter. The respondents were represented by the Assistant Government Pleader. The court observed that in contempt proceedings, the burden lies on the petitioner to establish wilful disobedience, and in the absence of the petitioner, no such case could be made out. Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt petition for non-prosecution. The judgment was delivered by Justice B.H. Marlapalle on 18.2.2005.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4 - Petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of court order directing fresh notification and completion of acquisition within nine months - Court dismissed contempt petition for non-prosecution as petitioner remained absent and no evidence of wilful breach was presented - Held that contempt proceedings require strict proof of wilful disobedience and cannot proceed in absence of petitioner (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court's order dated 30.9.1998 in Writ Petition No.1075 of 1997 directing them to issue fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and complete acquisition within nine months.
Final Decision
Contempt Petition No.332 of 1998 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- wilful disobedience
- burden of proof
- non-prosecution
- dismissal for default
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 188
Contempt Petition No.332 of 1998 in Contempt Petition No.361 of 1997
Mr.A.H.Palekar (A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8)
Shri.Siddhappa Dhondappa Kamshetti
The State of Maharashtra, Shri.Karun Shrivastava, Shri.Arvind Inamdar, Shri.Dumbare, Shri.Apurva Chandra, Smt.Gunde, Shri.M.R.Suravase, Shri.Shinde
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of court order in land acquisition matter.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought action against respondents for wilful disobedience of the court's order dated 30.9.1998.
Filing Reason
Alleged failure of respondents to comply with directions to issue fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and complete acquisition within nine months.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.1075 of 1997 was decided on 30.9.1998 directing respondents to issue fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within three months and complete acquisition within nine months from 2.2.1998.
Issues
Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court's order dated 30.9.1998 in Writ Petition No.1075 of 1997.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner alleged that despite specific directions, land acquisition proceedings were not concluded.
Respondents were represented by A.G.P. but no detailed submissions recorded due to petitioner's absence.
Ratio Decidendi
Contempt proceedings require strict proof of wilful disobedience and cannot proceed in the absence of the petitioner; dismissal for non-prosecution is warranted when the petitioner fails to appear.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner alleges that inspite of the specific directions issued by this Court, the land acquisition proceedings were not concluded and therefore, there was wilful breach of the order passed by this Court.
Be that as it may, Mr.M.M.Shaikh, Awwal Karkun from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer states that the petitioner is not present and the petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No.1075 of 1997 was decided on 30.9.1998. Contempt Petition No.361 of 1997 was filed alleging wilful disobedience. Subsequently, Contempt Petition No.332 of 1998 was filed. The matter came up for hearing on 18.2.2005 when the petitioner was absent and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4
