Holding

The Court held that the respondents were guilty of willful contempt for flouting the 15 October 2004 Supreme Court order and directed them to comply with the order, without imposing any punishment.

Summary

Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a contempt petition against the State Government of Gujarat and its officers for refusing to implement the Supreme Court's 15 October 2004 order granting non‑agricultural (residential) permission over certain government lands. The petitioners alleged that the respondents deliberately issued permission only for recreational use, thereby subverting the Court's direction. The Supreme Court held that judgments under Article 142 are binding on all authorities and cannot be ignored on the ground of incomplete facts. It found the respondents' actions to be willful, deliberate and contumacious contempt of the earlier order. The Court directed the Revenue Department and the Collector, Bhavnagar, to immediately grant residential permission and collect the applicable conversion charges, but imposed no punitive sanction, merely a stern warning. The contempt petition was allowed and the accompanying interim applications were dismissed.

Issues considered

The respondents' refusal to grant non‑agricultural permission as ordered by the Supreme Court constitutes contempt of court.
Whether a Supreme Court judgment under Article 142 is binding on all authorities and can be ignored on the ground of alleged incomplete facts.
Whether the respondents' conduct was willful, deliberate and contumacious, warranting a finding of contempt.
What specific directions are necessary to enforce compliance with the 15 October 2004 order.

Legislation cited

Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879s. 48
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151
Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976

Subjects

contempt of courtSupreme Court order complianceArticle 142non‑agricultural land conversionwillful contemptgovernment officersland use permission

Judgment

I
_-):--

PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. & ANR. A
v.

SMT. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS.
MARCH 20, 2007
B
[K.G. BALA KRISHNAN, CJ. AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.]

Contempt of Court-Non-compliance of Supreme Court order-Willful
and deliberate act to subvert the order with malafide motive-By senior and C
experienced officers of the State Government-Such conduct severely
condemned-Duty of the Court.

Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 142-Judgments of Supreme Court
are binding on all authorities-It is not open to any authorities to ignore
a binding judgment of Supreme Court on the found that full facts had not D
been placed before the Court.

Contempt petition was folded before this Court alleging that the
Respondent-State Government and its officers deliberately and willfully did
not comply with the specific directions contained in an earlier judgment of E
this Court with regard to grant of permission for non agricultural use in
respect of certain landed property. During pendency of the contempt
proceedings, Respondent authorities gave permission for non-agricultural
use, but for recreation purpose and not for residential purpose.

-- Court
Allowing the contempt petition and dismissing the connected IAs, the F

HELD: 1. It is well settled that the judgments of this Court are binding
on all the authorities under Article 142 of the Constitution and it is not open
to any authority to ignore a binding judgments of this Court on the ground G
that the full facts had not been placed before this Court and/or the judgment
of this Court in the earlier proceedings had only collaterally or incidentally
decided the issues raised in the show-cause notices. Such an attempt is to
belittle the issues and the orders of this Court. A perusal of the

221 H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 4 S.C.R.

A correspondences would show that the respondents have expressly stated that
the Government has decided not to accept the judgment of this Court insofar
as the aforementioned lands are concerned. It is needless to emphasize that
judgments of this Court are binding on all authorities and the government
cannot arrogate to it powers to reject the judgment of this Court. As regards
B the land admeasuring 80 acres in survey Nos. 471/2 and 50 acres survey No.
472 are concerned, the respondent-authorities are refusing to grant the
permission on the self same issues, namely, that the said land is a government
land. The said issues have already been finally concluded in favour of the
petitioners by the various judgments of this Court in the earlier litigations.
(Paras 12 and 14] [228-B; 229-C-E]
c
2. The respondents have with impunity flouted the judgment dated
15.10.2004 passed by this Court During the pendency of the contempt petition
and the IAs, a letter was written by the Revenue Department to the Collector,
Bhavnagar to take steps as the government has taken a decision to accept the
D judgment of this Court dated 15.10.2004 for the land admeasuring 17 acres
4 guntas and 0.32 guntas and 1 acres 14 guntas upon which sundervas
bungalow is located. The Collector was directed to comply with the said
direction, However, in order to nullify the aforesaid acceptance of the judgment
in respect of the land mentioned above, permission for non-agricultural use
has been given for the recreation use and not for the residential use thus
E depriving the petitioner of the right to construct residential house. The action
of the respondents and the Collector in issuing permission for non-
agricultural use for the recreation use is with an oblique motive to deprive
the petitioner or the right to construct residential houses as· already ordered
in the judgment dated 15.10.2004. This Court therefore, directs the Revenue
F Department and the Collector, Bhavnagar to forthwith issue permission to
the petitioner for residential use with a right to construct residential houses
for the above survey Nos. as mentioned in the letter dated 10.01.2007 of the
Revenue Department to the Collector, Bhavnagar. In an answer to a query put
by this Court to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether Survey No. 471/
2 was a water body, he made a categorical statement that the said survey No.
G 471/2 is not a water body. The statement made by the counsef is placed on
record. If it is not a water body, there cannot be any impediment on the part of
the respondents authorities in granting non~agricultural permission and other
necessary building and development permission in respect of RS No. 471/2
admeasuring 80 acres and RS. No. 472 admeasuring about 50 acres of village
H Vadve Dist. Bhavnagar. If RS. No. 471/2 is the Water Body the respondents
PALITAN,~ SUGAR MILLS PVT LTD '" VJLASINIBE:-.: RAMACHANDRAN 223
would be at liberty to decline Non-Agriculture permission. This Court also A
directs the respondents to collect non-agricultural permission charges and
conversion charges for the lands bearing survey Nos. 470/1, 47112, 47113,
and 472 situated at village Waders Bhavnagar as prevalent in the year 1981.
!Paras 18 and 1911232-D-H; 233-A-Df

3. All the respondent had deliberately and with malafide motive
B
..., committed contempt of the order dated 15.10.2004. When they were advised
/""' to comply with the order by this court during the pendency of the contempt
proceedings, the act of the respondent in not complying is not only willful but
also deliberate and contumacious. The respondents have not even tendered
unqualified apology before this Court but filed an application in IA Nos. 17 c
and 18 of 2005. This Court, therefore, holds them quality of willful and
deliberated act of contempt of the order dated 15.10.2004. However, taking a
lenient view and taking into consideration the future prospects of the officers,
this Court is not imposing any punishment for their willful and contumacious
violation of the order of this Court. They are severely warned that they shall D
'Y
not involve themselves or violate the order of the highest Court of the land
~
and will not resort to the unacceptable new pleas by way of defence for the
first time in the contempt proceedings . They shall not hereafter also take
the plea of inventing an innovative defence that they did not relies the
implications of the order passed by this Court when no such argument was
ever advanced at the time of hearing before this Court and on earlier
E
occasions. [Paras 20 and 21) (233-D-G)

4. Courts have held in a catena of decisions that where in violation of
}._
an order of this court something has been done in disobedience, it will be the

--, duty of this 'Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not to allow the
perpetuation of the wrong doing . The inherient power will not only be available
F

under Sections 151 CPC as available in such a case but it is bound to be
exercised in that manner in the interest of justice and public interest. All the
respondent are senior and experienced officers and must be presumed to know
that under the constitutional scheme of this country orders of this Court have
G
to be punctually obeyed and should not be trifled with. It has been already
found that the Respondents have acted deliberately to subvert the orders of
"1- this Court. This Court therefore, holds them guilty of contempt of Court and

- do hereby censure severely their conduct. Though a copy of this order could
be sent which shall form part of the annual confidential record of service of
H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A each of the said officers, this Court refrains from doing so by taking a lenient
view of the matter considering the future prospects of the officers. Four weeks
time is granted to the respondents to comply with all direction given in the
.iudgment dated 15.10.2004. The petitioner is at liberty to move this Court if
the Court directions are not complied with in its letter and spirit.
B (Para 22( (233-H; 234-A-D( .

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 136-
137 of2005.

IN
c Civil Appeal Nos. 6798-6799 of2004.

WITH

IA. Nos. 17-18, IA ~o.1

D IN

I.A. Nos. 17-18 and IA Nos 21-30

IN

E C.A Nos. 6798-6799 of2004.

Mukul Rohatgi, P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Huzefa Ahmadi,
Jitendra Sadhwani and Sumit Goel (for MIS P.H. Parekh & Co.) for the Petitioners.

L. Nageshwar Rao, Hemntika Wahi, Shivangi and Jatin Zaveri for the
---1...
F Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. This Court, on'l5.I0.2004, by a detailed
judgment and order passed in Civil Appeal No. 6798 ahd 6799 of2004 issued,
G inter alia, the following directions:

"73. In the result, we allow the appeals in part and direct the Collector,
Bhavnagar to grant non-agricultural permission in respect of the Jarid
'of about 76 acres 36 guntas comprised in Survey No. 46911, Bhavnagar
District after collecting the non-agricultural tax calculated at the rate
H of 5% per sq. m applicable at the time when the application was made
I
~

PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT.LTD. 1•. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN [LAKSHMANAN. I.) 225

by the applicant i.e. 24.2.3003 which aggregate to Rs. 15,57,540. Dispute, A
if any, with regard to the tax calculated and the rate has to be agitated
separately and collected later. The Commissioner of Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the application for
sanction within four weeks, the layout and building plans as per the
current development control rules and pass order in accordance with B
law.

74. We also direct Respondents and 2 to collect non-agricutural
permission charges and conversion charges for the lands bearing
Survey Nos. 470/l, 471/2, 471/3 and 472 situated at Village Vadva,
Bhavnagar as prevalent in the year 1981." C
2. The petitioners sent a representation to the Government along with
a copy of the aforementioned judgment with a request to comply with the
directions contained in the judgment. The petitioners, thereafter sent several
reminders to the respondents to comply with the said judgment.
D
3. Notification was issued by the State Government wherein the lands
of RS Nos. 47112 and 472 were notified as a water body in purported compliance
with the High Court's order dated 02.08.2002. By the said order, the High
Court had directed the State Government to notify the water bodies in the
territory of the State that vest in the State and/or the Area Development E
Authorities or the Local Bodies including the Panchayat in the Official Gazette
within 3 months from the date of this order and not a private land.

4. The Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department wrote to the
Collector, Bhavnagar District that the Government had accepted the said
judgment of this Court except for the land of RS No. 472 and requested the F
Collector to take steps for the entire survey Nos. except for the abovementioned
survey No. 472 and to immediately inform the Government about the steps
taken by him. This communication was sent on 16.02.2005. Although the
direction from the Revenue Department was for accepting the judgment of
this Court except for the land covered by survey No. 472., the Collector not G
only refused to follow the judgment for survey No. 472 but also for 80 acres
of survey No. 471/2. On 28.06.2005, the above contempt petition was filed in
this Court with the following prayer:-

(a) "initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents no. l to
l 0 herein for deliberately and willfully not complying with the H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.
)._
A specific directions of this Hon' ble Court contained in the judgment
dated 15.10.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 6798-99 of 2004;

(b) direct the respondents to forthwith grant non-agricultural
permission and other necessary building and development
permission in respect of part of the land of R.S. No. 471/2
B (admeasuring about 80 acres) and 472 (admeasuring about 50
acres) of Village Vadva, District Bhavnagar.
~·

(c) Pass such other and suitable order/s as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case
'
and in the interest of justice."
c
5. On 25.07.2005, this Court issued notice regarding non-compliance of
directions contained in para 74 confining survey Nos. 471/2 and 472. After
the notice was issued in the contempt petition, the State Government filed an
application for directions in IA No. 17 and 18 of 2005 for certain directions.

D 6. On 09.05.2006, this Court passed the following order:-

"The clarification sought for in these contempt petitions is by way of
".
•
review petition. Let the entire matter be placed before the appropriate
bench which delivered the judgment dated 15.10.2004.
E The contemnors must be present on the next date of hearing".

7. This Court corrected the mistake in the order dated 09.05.2006 and
passed the following order:

"In our order dated 9.5.2006 in place of Contempt Petition the IAs --l.
F shall be reco~ded".

8. A letter was written on 10.01.2007 to the Revenue Department by the
Collector to take steps as the State Government has taken a decision to accept
the judgment of this Court dated 15. l 0.2004 for land admeasuring 17 acres 4
guntas, 32 guntas and l acre 14 guntas upon which sundervas bungalow is
G
located. However, to nullify the aforesaid acceptance of the judgment in .
respect of the land mentioned in survey Numbers above, permission for non- '
agricultural use has been given for the recreation use and not for the residential ;.,.,.
use thus depriving the petitioner _of the right to construct residential building.

H 9. We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. v. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 227
-> in the contempt petition and Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the A
respondents in contempt petition and the petitioners in IA No. 17 and 18 of
2005.

10. At the time of hearing, our attention was drawn to the details of the
earlier proceedings where the contention was that the land on survey Nos.
472 and 471/2 which form part of the lake/water body was taken by the State
B
...... Government. Our attention was also drawn to the following documents:
r
"I. Affidavit-in-reply dated 12.12.2001 filed by Shri Kantilal A Patel,
former District Collector, Bhavnagar before this Hon 'ble Court in IA
Nos. 2-3 of2001 in Civil Appeal No. 5556 of2001. c
2. Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 21.3 .2002 filed by Shri Natvarlal R
r Agravat, Legal Officer, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation before this
Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 5556 of2001 filed by the Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation.
D
3. Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 21.3 .2002 filed by Shri Natvarlal R
f
., Agravat, Legal Officer, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation before this
Hon'ble Court in Special Leave Petition No. 1561 of2002 filed by the
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation.

4. Synopsis filed in Civil Appeal No. 5556 of 200 I E
5. Chronology of events filed on behalf of Bhavnagar Municipal
Corporation in the aforementioned Civil Appeal No. 5556 of2001

6. Civil Appeal No. 5556 of 2001 after elaborate arguments was
>
dismissed as withdrawn by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated F
14.11.2002.

7. Review Petition No. 33 of2003 filed for the review of the judgment
of this Hon 'ble Court dated 5.12.2002 passed in SLP No. 1561-63 of
2002. The affidavit in support of this review petition was filed by Mr.
Kantilal A Patel. G
8. The Review Petition was dismissed by this Hon 'ble Court vide
-r- order dated 6.2.2003."

11. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi invited our attention to the various findings and
categoric directions issued by this Court to the respondents State of Gujarat H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A and its officers.
12. It is well settled that the judgments of this Court are binding on all
the authorities under Article 142 of the Constitution and it is not open to any
authority to ignore a binding judgment of this Court on the ground that the
B full facts had not been placed before this Court and/or the judgment of this
Court in the earlier proceedings had only collaterally or incidentally decided
the issues raised in the show-cause notices. Such an attempt is to belittle the
issues and the orders of this Court. We are pained to say that the then
Deputy Collector has scant respect for the orders passed by the Apex Court.

C 13. Our attention was also drawn to the letter dated 16.02.2005 by the
Government of Gujarat to the Collector, Bhavnagar regarding the judgment of
this Court dated 15.10.2004 and letter dated 11.05.2005 of the Collector,
Bhavnagar in No. ROIKB-21/2005 and, in particular, to para 6 of the said
communication which reads thus:

D "In connection with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated
15. l 0.2004, the Revenue Department of the State Government vide
letter dated 16.2.2005 at Reference No. 3 had accepted the judgment
rendered by the Hon 'ble Apex Court for all the lands except for the
land of RS No. 472 ofMauje Vadva. Thus, directions have been given
E to this office to initiate process for the land of all the survey numbers
except for the area ofS.No. 472 ofVadva. For initiating further process
in connection with the Jetter dated I 6.2.2005 of the Government, by
the order at Reference No.5 whereby the Scheme was sanctioned for
construction of dwelling units for weaker sections of the society for
total 34,47,918 sq.mtrs. out of which about 80 acres of land of Acres
F .-·
550 and 31 gunthas of RSN 471/2 is being shown as "Water Body"
in the sanctioned development plan of the Bhavnagar Area
Development Authority and as the land of S.No. 472 is to be kept
pending for the present, except this lands as well as the land for which
earlier non-agricultural permission has been granted, considering the
G land of acres 699-03 gunthas (2829020.5 sq. mtrs) forming part of ULC
Scheme to be Deemed NA (land termed to be non-agricultural land)
pursuant to the judgment dated 15. l 0.2004 of the Hon 'ble Apex Court,
after assessment under the provisions of Section 48 of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code, 1879, it was intimated by this Office to the State ·
H Government by letter at Reference No. 4 that permission can be
,·
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. v. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 229

.,>...
given." A
14. Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel further submitted that despite
our clear and unambiguous direction the respondent No.3 Deputy Secretary,
Revenue Department of the State Government under specific instructions
from respondent Nos. I and 2 Secretaries of the Revenue Department has vide
letter dated 16.02.2005 conveyed to the Collector the stand of the Government B
not to accept the judgment dated 15.10.2004 in respect of the land admeasuring
50 acres situated in survey No. 472 and grounds which are wholly untenable.
Pursuant thereto respondent No. 8 the Collector acting on the aforementioned
instruction of respondent Nos. I,· 2 and 3 has also refused to grant such no
objection in respect of survey Nos. 471/2 and 472. A perusal of the said C
correspondence would, in our view, show that the respondents have expressly
stated that the Government has decided not to accept the judgment of this
Court insofar as the aforementioned lands are concerned. It is needless to
emphasize that judgments of this Court are binding on all authorities and the
Government cannot arrogate to its powers to reject the judgment of this D
Court. As regards the land admeasuring 80 acres in survey Nos. 471/2 and
._,· 50 acres in 472 are concerned, the respondent-authorities are refusing to grant
the NA permission on the self same issues, namely, that the said land is a
government land. The said issues have already been finally concluded in
favour of the petitioners by the various judgments of this Court in the earlier E
litigations.

15. In para b3 of the judgment, this Court has observed as under:-

"68. From the above discussion by us and of the record would clearly
go to show that the following issues are covered by the earlier
F
proceedings and finally decided by the Courts and reached its finality
and which cannot be reopened again:

(I) The lands in Survey Nos. 469/1, 470/1, 47112, 47113 and 472
aggregating about 952 acres sold in favour of the appellants by the
former ruler with the permission of the Collector and registered has G
become final and conclusive.

(2) The lands in question being pasture land (Bid land) and not being
fit for cultivation was excluded from the purview of the Gujarat
Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960.
H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A (3) The Right, Title Entry made in the revenue records in respect of
the lands in questi9n in the name of the appellant has become final
and conclusive and, therefore, removal of the appellant from any of
the Survey Numbers in question is not permissible.

(4) The declaration issued by the competent authority and Additional
B Collector under the ULC Act, in exercise of the power under Section
21 ( 1) of the ULC Act after verifying the title of the appellant in respect
of the above survey numbers is final and conclusive.

(5) The writ petition filed by the Bhavnagar Municipality for quashing
and setting aside the order dated 6.12.1979 granting exemption to the
c lands and sanctioning the scheme under Section 21 of the ULC Act
was valid and legal.

(6) It is not in dispute that the appellants have raised construction on
the lands and the lands have been fully developed, save and except,
D the lands in Survey No. 469/1.

(7) The orders dated 9.11.1979 and 20.11.1979 whereby the Deputy
Collector dropped the proceedings filed by the former Ruler under
Section 8 of the ALC Act for a declaration that the sale deed dated
31.3.1971 was not effected by him with a view to defeat the ALC Act
E was rejected by the Tribunal in Revision application by the State
Government. In respect of the ALC proceedings, the said order was
finally concluded since under the ALC Act no further appeal was
preferred by the State Government.

(8) This also was not in dispute that pursuant to the cabinet decision
F of the Gujarat Government, the appellants withdraw all the pending
proceedings and, thereafter notices were issued under Rule I08(6) of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code seeking to revise the right and title
Entry No. 1950 principally contending that the sale deed dated 31.3.1971
was invalid.
G
On the abovementioned grounds, the mutation entry was sought to
be cancelled. The Deputy Collector, Bhav11agar held that the ownership
of the land in question was of the appellant and a decision was taken
that the revenue mutation No. 1950 as recorded in Village Form No.
6 was legal and valid which was also decided to withdraw the show
H
*-
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT.LTD. v. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 231
cause notice dated 27. 7.1991 and to drop all the proceedings commenced A
>
under the said notice.

(9) The Deputy Collector also confirmed the order of the City
Mamlatdar dated 16.9.1962. The reservation of Survey No. 469/1 in
favour of the Bhavnagar University had lapsed.
B
(10) The High Court, in its judgment, in SCA No. 1032 ofl996 quashed
the notice dated 25.1.1996 of the Collector. The High Court observed
-;
,;---
that it is unfair for the Collector to raise various issues such as illegal
sale of bid land, breach of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, ALC
Act etc. which were closed and decided earlier.
c
( 11) The issue of ULC Act and ALC Act was concluded by the
judgment of the High Court in SCA No. 941 of 1980.
_,
(12) No further action can be taken for disturbing the finality of the
mutation entry in view of the judgment of the High Court rendered on
24.11.2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 and, therefore, there is no question
D
of disturbing the mutation entry on the strength of the contravention
of the provisions of other enactments now.
"I

(13) Civil appeal No. 5536 of2001 preferred by the Municipal Corporation
was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus the issue of ULC Act and ALC Act E
raised in SCA 941 of 1980 was finally concluded by the said judgment.

(14) in the judgment in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sug"ar Mills
Ltd (supra), this Court decided the dispute between the Bhavnagar
•- University and the appellant with reference to Gujarat Town Planning
' >- and Urban Development Act, 1976. The appeal filed by the Bhavnagar F
.-. University was finally dismissed by this Court.

(15) Review petition No. 33 of2003 was also dismissed by this Court."

16. It is thus clear and apparent that despite the clear observations of
this Court in paragraphs above of the present judgment that no issue raised G
in prior litigations can be raised again and no attempt to challenge the right
and title in respect of the land in question could be made against the petitioners,
-., . namely, the respondents have once again sought to raise the same issues •'
with a view to flout the directions of this Court and deprive the petitioners
of the legitimate rights accruing to them from the judgment of this Court. The
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A aforesaid attitude persists notwithstanding that the judgment of this Court
has been passed in contempt proceedings and this Court has expressly
observed that any further lapse shall be viewed extremely seriously.

17. We have already elaborately dealt with the history of the present
litigation between the parties which shows that despite the petitioners having
B succeeded before this Court in 4 different hotly contested litigations vide
judgments dated 14.11.2002, 03.12.2002, 05.12.2002 and 06.02.2003, the
respondents have in one way or the other not complied with the judgment .,,...
~
or not given the petitioners the development and building permissions required
to construct on the lands in question.
c
18. In our opinion, the reJpondents have with impunity flouted our
judgments dated 15.10.2004. Mr. L.N. Rao invited our attention to the reply
filed by respondents in order to justify their action in the contempt petition
raising new pleas and new contentions in regard to survey No. 472 and 47/
l. This apart they also filed IA Nos. 17 and I 8 for ce.-tain directions after the
D
notice was issued by this Court in the contempt petition regarding non-
compliance and directions. The learned senior counsel reiterated the y
submissions made in the two IAs. The respondents sought to file the above
2 IAs under the guise of filing the review petition. During the pendency of "'
the contempt petition and the IAs, a letter was written by the Revenue
E Department to the Collector, Bhavnagar to take steps as the Go".ernment has
I
~'1
taken a decision to accept the judgment of this Court dated 15.10.2004 for the
land admeasuring 17 acres 4 guntas and 0.32 guntas and l acre 14 guntas
upon which sundervas bungalow is located. The Collector was directed to
comply with the said direction. However, in order to nullify the aforesaid J
F acceptance of the judgment in respect of the land mentioned above, permission .-J, l
for non-agricultural use has been given for the recreation use and not for the
residential use thus depriving the petitioner of the right to construct residential
houses. The action of the respondents and the Collector in issuing permission
·•·
!
for .non-agricultural use for the recreation use is with an oblique motive to
deprive the petitioner of the right to construct residential houses as already
G
ordered in our judgment dated 15.10.2004. We, therefore, direct the Revenue
Department and the Collector, Bhavnagar to forthwith issue permission to the
petitioner for residential use with a right to construct residential houses for
.:y.
the above survey Nos. as mentioned in the letter dated 10.01.2007 of the
Revenue Department to the Collector, Bhavnagar. I~ an answer to a query put
H
PAL!TANA SUGAR ~!ILLS PVT. LTD. 1·. VILASINJBEN RAMACHANDRAN [LAKSHMANAN. J.] 233

by this Court to Mr. Mukul Rohatgi as to whether survey No. 471/2 was a A
water body, the learned senior counsel while disputing the statement of
learned senior counsel' for the State made a categorical statement that the said
survey No. 47112 is not a water body. The statement made by the learned
senior counsel is placed on record. If it is not a water body, there cannot be
any impediment on the part of the respondents' authorities in granting non-
B
agricultural permission and other necessary building and development
...... permission in respect of RS No. 471/2 admeasuring 80 acres and 472
>--
admeasuring about 50 ac~es of village Vadva Dist. Bhavnagar. If 471/2 is the
Water Body the respondents would be at liberty to decline Non Agriculture
permission.
c
19. We also direct the respondents to collect non-agricultural permission
charges and conversion charges for the lands bearing survey Nos. 470/1, 471/
2, 47113 and 472 situated at village wadera Bhavnagar as prevalent in the year
1981.
D
20. In our opinion, all the respondents had deliberately and with mala
fide motive committed contempt of our order dated 15.10.2004. We have
...
already explained their conduct and refusal to comply with our earlier orders.
When they were advised to comply with the order by this Court during the
pendency of the contempt proceedings, the act of the respondent in not
complying is not only willful but also deliberate and contumacious. The E
respondents have not even tendered unqualified apology before this Court
but filed an application in IA No. 17 and 18 of 2005.

21. We, therefore, hold them guilty of willful and deliberate act of
> contempt of our order dated 15.10.2004. However, taking a lenient view and
F
taking into consideration of the future prospects of the officers, we are not
imposing any punishment for their willful and contumacious violation of the
order of this Court. They are severely warned that they shall not involve
themselves or violate the order of the highest Court of the land and will not
resort to the unacceptable lnew pleas by way of defence for the first time in
the contempt proceedings. They shall not hereafter also take the plea of
G
inventing an innovative p.efence that they did not realise the implications of
1
....,. the order passed by this Court when no such argument was ever advanced
at the time of hearing before this Court and on earlier occasions.

22. Courts have held in a catena of decisions that where in violation of H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.
A
A an order of this Court, something has been done in disobedience, it will be
the duty of this Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not to allow the
perpetuation of the wrong doing. In our opinion, the inherent power will not
only be available under Section 151 CPC as available to us in such a case but
it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice and public
interest. All the respondents are senior and experienced officers and must be
B
presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme of this country orders
of this Court have to be punctually obeyed and should not be trifled with. Ir'"
--<..
We have already found hereinabove that they have acted deliberately to
subvert the orders of this Court. We, therefore, hold them guilty of contempt·
of Court and do hereby censure severely their conduct. Though a copy of
c this order could be sent which shall form part of the annual confidential
record of service of each of the said officers, we refrain from doing so by
taking a lenient view of the matter considering the future prospects of the
officers. As already stated, the officers shall not indulge in any adventurous ~
•
~

act and strictly obey the orders passed by the Courts of law. We by this order
D grant four weeks time to the respondents to comply with all our directions
given in .the judgment dated 15.10.2004. The petitioner is at liberty to move ..
this Court if the directions are not complied with in its Jetter and spirit. .
23. The contempt petition stands allowed and the IAs stand dismissed.

B.B.B. Contempt Petition allowed & IAs dimissed.