42 Conp-12-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2026 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2013 Ashok Rungta ...Petitioner Vs. Harsha H.E.The Defence Estate Officer ...Respondent ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1537 OF 2016 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2013 ALONGWITH REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 24409 OF 2024 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1537 OF 2016 ALONGWITH NOTICE NO. 1278 OF 2013 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2013 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 26255 OF 2024 IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 24409 OF 2024 ***** Ms. Gulnar Mistry, Mr. Subit Chakrabarty, Ms. Khushnumah Banerjee i/by Vidhii Partners Advocate for the Decree holder/ Petitioner Senior Counsel Mr. Ram Apte, Devang Parmar, Sagar Machi, Harshad P. Nahata i/by Adv. Advocate for the Union of India Seema 1/8 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Digitally signed by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date: 2026.08.29 16:27:19 +0530 42 Conp-12-2026.doc Bharat Mehta ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST 2026 P. C. :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Contempt Petitioner and learned Senior Advocate for the Union of India. 2. The grievance made in this Contempt petition is about non- compliance of three orders. They are as follows:- a) Order dated 21.07.2023. b) Order dated 28.08.2023. c) Order dated 06.05.2024. 3. All these orders were passed in Execution Application No. 811 of 2013 filed by the present Petitioner. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has invited my attention to the observations made in those orders. They are as follows:- a) As per Order dated 21.07.2023 After recording the submission, this Court directed Special Land Acquisition Officer to disburse the said amount alongwith accrued interest, in favour of the applicants forthwith, if not disbursed earlier. Seema 2/8 42 Conp-12-2026.doc In any case, the said amount shall be disbursed in favour of the applicants before the next date of listing. b) As per order dated 28.08.2023 This Court recorded submission :- “It is submitted that even though the UoI has given a cheque to them, they are verifying their record as to whether it is credited to their account”. There was issue of confirmation of receipt of these amounts from the Special Land Acquisition Officer. c) As per order dated 06.05.2024 In para nos. 9 and 10, it is observed that :- “It is the responsibility of the acquiring body to make the payment of compensation to the land owners. The Defence Estates Officer has not been able to dispute the claim of the SDO that in view of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 22,31,559/-, the SDO was not in a position to pay the lesser amount of Rs. 17,69,510/- for which the cheque was received from the Defence Estates Officer. Further, neither the Defence Estates Officer viz. acquiring body nor SDO/SLAO have disputed that land compensation has not been paid to the Applicant”. The submission is whether it is Union of India or SLAO ultimately, the Applicant should get the amount. Seema 3/8 42 Conp-12-2026.doc 4. As against this, learned Senior Advocate Shri Apte submitted that earlier they have issued cheque in favour of SDO for Rs. 17,69,510/-. However, in view of non-confirmation by the State Government, they have issued another cheque of this amount and deposited in this Court. 5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the said amount is withdrawn and this amount is deposited belatedly after filing of the contempt petition. 6. Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the decisions given by this Court on reference were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined about not granting the components under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Because, it pertains to a period earlier to the introduction of that sub-section. Even he submitted that he has some more grounds to object to the filing of the Execution Application. He places reliance on the observations in case of R. N. Dey and Others Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others1. He also submitted that review application is already filed to review for order dated 06.05.2024. According to the learned Advocate for the Applicant mere filing of a 1 (2000) 4 SCC 400 Seema 4/8 42 Conp-12-2026.doc review application does not prevent the Court from proceeding with the grievance about contempt of the said order. 7. Learned Advocate for the Applicant places reliance on observations in case of Israr Ahmad Khan Vs. Amarnath Prasad and Ors.2 and more specifically observations in para no. 5. In that matter the review petition was filed, but it was under objection and no attempts were made to remove the objections. According to her, in this case also the review application was filed after expiry of time granted as per order dated 06.05.2024. She places reliance also on observation in para no. 6. It is observed :- “It was not open to the alleged contemnors to not comply with an order of this Court on the mere filing of a Review Petition, which, at the deliberate cost of repetition, remains defective due to want of rectification by the concerned Review Petitioner. 8. Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R. N. Dey and Others (supra), there was issue about non-payment of the amount as per the award passed as per Land Acquisition Act. In that case there was first appeal pending and admittedly, there is no order of stay. The Supreme Court observed :- 2 (2026) SCC Online SC 322 Seema 5/8 42 Conp-12-2026.doc “Decree holder in that case instead of filing the contempt application, at the most, have proceeded with the execution of the decree or award”. It is further observed :- “We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court’s dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the court. 9. Now coming to the facts of this case, it is no doubt true in the order dated 21.07.2023, direction was given to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to disburse the amount with interest till next date of listing. This direction was given on the basis of the submission made by learned Senior Advocate Shri Apte that amount of Rs. 17,69,510/- was deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer. On this background, it was very much necessary for the Special Land Acquisition Officer to disburse that amount to the Petitioners. Admittedly, they have not done it. Seema 6/8 42 Conp-12-2026.doc 10. Whereas in the order dated 28.08.2023, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that they are verifying their record as to whether it is credited to their accounts or not. 11. Whereas as per order dated 06.05.2024, this Court has directed the Union of India to make payment of the compensation alongwith accrued interest within a period of eight weeks. 12. Now the case put up by the learned Senior Advocate Shri Apte is without going into verification of payment of the amount of Rs. 17,69,510/- by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, they have deposited the amount in the Court and it is already withdrawn. Admittedly, this was done after filing of the Contempt petition i.e. on 03.02.2025. 13. Now the issue is, ‘whether not depositing the amount earlier and depositing it later on, will be a sufficient to invoke contempt jurisdiction?’. 14. This Court feels that the contempt jurisdiction is not to be exercised in usual manner and it has to be exercised only when there is willful violation of the order of the Court and for which no explanation is offered. This Court feels that the submission made by the Union of Seema 7/8 42 Conp-12-2026.doc India about making payment to the SLAO but not verified by SLAO and subsequently deposited in the Court is not of such a nature so as to persuade this Court to exercise the contempt jurisdiction. 15. Furthermore, there is an observation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court about grant of the component under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It means, the amount under the said head is in dispute. If it is so, then it will be proper to decide this issue in Execution Application and such issue cannot be raised by taking recourse to the contempt jurisdiction. It is matter of record that both the parties are relying upon the calculations of the amount and admittedly, there is dispute. 16. So this Court feels that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be resorted to and there is no merit in the contempt petition. Hence, it is dismissed. 17. All the contention of the parties about entitlement of the claim are kept open and they can be raised in the Execution proceedings. [S. M. MODAK, J.] Seema 8/8