M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL versus SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.

M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL versus SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.

Because respondents issued a fresh notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on 14.02.2020 and an award was passed on 12.11.2020, and the Section 11 notification did not invoke the urgency clause, respondents did not wilfully or intentionally violate the Court's earlier directions; petitioner must avail statutory remedies under Sections 64, 66 and 74 of the 2013 Act for any grievance about compensation or categorization of land, and contempt is not made out.

Parties
Petitioner: M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL; Respondent: SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition / Final Judgment/dismissal
Outcome
Contempt petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Compensation, Notification Under Section 11, 2013 Act, Award, Statutory Remedies Under RFCTLARR Act, 2013, Use and Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction
Land Acquisition Contempt of Court Forest Law Administrative Law Compensation Notification Under Section 11, 2013 Act Award Statutory Remedies Under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

Petitioner

SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition / Final Judgment/dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents wilfully and deliberately violated Supreme Court directions dated 17.08.2015, 29.08.2016 and 05.01.2017
  2. 2 Whether notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act issued without invoking urgency clause entitles the landowner to benefits under Section 40 of the 2013 Act
  3. 3 Whether petitioner must pursue statutory remedies under Sections 64, 66 and 74 of the 2013 Act rather than seek relief by contempt proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Because respondents issued a fresh notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on 14.02.2020 and an award was passed on 12.11.2020, and the Section 11 notification did not invoke the urgency clause, respondents did not wilfully or intentionally violate the Court's earlier directions; petitioner must avail statutory remedies under Sections 64, 66 and 74 of the 2013 Act for any grievance about compensation or categorization of land, and contempt is not made out.

Court Disposition

Contempt petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Contempt Petitions (C) Nos.726-728 of 2017 dismissed
  • No order as to costs