The Supreme Court of India, on 06.02.2019, in ER. K. ARUMUGAM  v V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS ., had allowed the appeal that had been made against the High Court of Madras’s judgment that affirmed the learned Single Judge’s order by which a direction was given to the appellant-TWAD Board for paying Rs.600/- per sq. ft. to the first respondent in connection to the land that the appellant-Board had entered into possession in the year 1991 with first respondent’s permission.

FACTS:

In year 1991-1992, the appellant-Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) , had entered into a land in village with the first respondent-land owner ‘s permission for constructing Head works and Staff quarters. In the following year 1993, the Head works were constructed by appellant-Board to provide drinking water as well as residential Staff quarters. The recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram was accepted via an order, while the value of the land was fixed followed by a demand draft that was sent by the appellant to first respondent by a letter that was denied by the first respondent to have received and was eventually returned.

A writ petition was filed by the first respondent that was disposed of by the High Court along with a direction being given to the appellant-Board for submitting the report to District Collector for ensuring a reasonable and fair compensation to be given to the first respondent.With regard to the direction, a letter was sent to the District Collector, Kancheepuram by the Managing Director of the appellant-Board that stated the authority in fixing the value of land belonged to the District Collector, while requesting him for fixing a fair and reasonable land value as per the order of the High Court. It had been decided in State Level Committee meeting that such case did not fall under the category of the Land Acquisition Act nor under the ‘Private Negotiation’ while it was only the District Collector who possessed competence in fixing the land value in such cases and as such the issue was remitted to the District Collector for determining the land value and communicating it to the Managing Director, TWAD Board in order to ensure a compensation that is fair and reasonable to be given to the first respondent while ensuring the compliance of the High Court’s order .

It was opined by the District Collector that the value of land be fixed at Rs.200/- per sq. since it was a fair and reasonable value with regard to the land classification during the time when the Board entered upon the land. Based upon the land value that was fixed, the total amount calculated by the TWAD Board for compensation came Rs.1,11,80,723/- .

A contempt petition was filed by the first respondent which alleged that the order of the High Court had not been followed wherein the value of the land was fixed at Rs.600/- per sq by the learned Single Judge while directing to pay the first respondent the amount at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. ft.
The appellant-Board, being aggrieved made an appeal before the Division Bench that faced a dismissal.

DECISION HELD BY THE APEX COURT:

The Apex Court while quashing the District Collector’s order, upheld that in case of the contempt jurisdiction, the court ought to confine itself to the four corners of the order that had been alleged to have been disobeyed while further upholding that an error had been committed by the learned Single Judge when the contempt petition was entertained by him while further directing the TWAD Board for paying compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. because such money belonged to the public which would have serious implications upon the public exchequer and as such, public money shall not permitted to be taken away by individuals through the filing of contempt petition thereby setting aside the learned Single Judge’s and allowing the appeal.

[1] Full Judgment:

[embeddoc url=”https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/33050/33050_2017_Judgement_06-Feb-2019.pdf” download=”all”]