The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing a contempt petition on grounds of ambiguity in the original order. It clarified that contempt jurisdiction cannot be avoided merely because an order is allegedly capable of two interpretations. The Court must examine specific grievances of non-compliance based on material on record, not assume compliance from others’ silence.
Facts Of The Case:
The dispute originated from Writ Petition No.3412 of 1992 filed by the predecessor of the appellants seeking completion of acquisition proceedings and possession of land bearing Gat No.78 in Village Chinchavali, Thane. On 17.01.2003, the Bombay High Court disposed of this petition along with four others through a common order. In this order, the Special Land Acquisition Officer stated that the State Government had no objection to handing over possession of land in its possession. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) through its counsel submitted that land being used for public purpose was under acquisition, while unutilized land would be handed over to the Special Land Acquisition Officer by 20.01.2003 for delivery to the petitioners on 22.01.2003. The MIDC also assured payment of compensation for land continuing in its possession until completion of acquisition.Pursuant to this order, when the appellants visited the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s office on 22.01.2003, possession was not handed over. The appellants sent several letters including reminders dated 24.02.2003 and 05.05.2003, followed by a legal notice on 19.06.2003, but received no response. Consequently, the appellants filed Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003 alleging willful disobedience. In response, the Special Land Acquisition Officer claimed through affidavit that an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been passed on 07.10.1970 regarding Gat No.78, compensation paid to the erstwhile owner, and possession handed over to MIDC. The appellants disputed this, asserting that no award was ever brought on record during writ proceedings. The High Court dismissed the contempt petition on 26.02.2022, holding that the original order was unclear and capable of two interpretations, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural journey began with the filing of Writ Petition No.3412 of 1992 by the predecessor of the appellants before the Bombay High Court, seeking completion of land acquisition proceedings and possession of the subject land. This writ petition, along with four other connected petitions, was disposed of by a common order dated 17.01.2003, wherein the High Court recorded statements made by the State Government and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation regarding handing over of possession and payment of compensation. When the appellants alleged non-compliance of this order, they filed Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003 before the same High Court, specifically pleading willful disobedience by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and other respondents.During the contempt proceedings, multiple affidavits were exchanged between the parties. The Special Land Acquisition Officer filed an affidavit on 14.10.2003 claiming that possession of lands in State custody had been handed over and that an award had been passed in 1970 regarding Gat No.78. The MIDC and Collector also filed affidavits supporting this position, while the appellants filed rejoinders consistently denying receipt of possession and disputing the existence of any award. On 08.07.2009, the High Court directed production of relevant records, including the alleged award, for perusal.The contempt petition was finally heard by a Division Bench, which by judgment dated 26.02.2022 dismissed the petition, holding that the original order dated 17.01.2003 was unclear and capable of two interpretations, and therefore declined to initiate contempt action. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of the present civil appeal. The Supreme Court, after hearing all parties and perusing the summoned records, set aside the High Court’s judgment on 26.02.2022 and restored the contempt petition for fresh consideration, while clarifying that no opinion on merits was expressed.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court: Person Not Made Party in Case Can Challenge Order That Harms Him
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court observed that the High Court fundamentally erred in dismissing the contempt petition on the ground that the order dated 17.01.2003 was unclear and capable of two interpretations. It noted that contempt jurisdiction cannot be avoided merely because an order allegedly admits of multiple interpretations, especially when specific grievances of non-compliance have been raised by the petitioners. The Court observed that the Division Bench ought to have examined the petitioners’ grievance in light of the specific averments made in the contempt petition, where they clearly stated that possession of land bearing Gat No.78 had not been handed over despite the directions issued.The Supreme Court further observed that the High Court failed to consider the material placed before it, including the direction issued on 08.07.2009 for production of records, and the impugned order did not indicate any consideration of the alleged award of 1970. The Court observed that when the original petitioner had made specific allegations of non-compliance, the Division Bench should have examined such grievance based on the available material rather than assuming that absence of grievance by other landowners implied compliance. The Court emphasized that the common order dated 17.01.2003 must be read as a whole, and when so read, it clearly contained categorical directions regarding attending the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s office on 22.01.2003 and delivery of possession of lands in State custody. The Supreme Court also noted for the record that the alleged award dated 07.10.1970 was not produced before it by the respondents, casting doubt on its existence.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2022 passed by the Bombay High Court in Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003. The Court held that the High Court had erred in dismissing the contempt petition on the ground that the original order dated 17.01.2003 was unclear and capable of two interpretations. It directed that the proceedings in Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003 be restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration in light of the observations made in the judgment. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions, and therefore, all parties were at liberty to raise their respective contentions before the High Court for its due consideration. The Court specifically noted that the alleged award dated 07.10.1970 was not produced before it by the respondents, leaving that factual aspect to be examined by the High Court upon remand. The civil appeal was accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with the direction that the contempt proceedings be reconsidered afresh.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bhaskar Govind Gavate (Now Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondent(s) Citation: 2025 INSC 1379 Civil Appeal Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.10346 OF 2024 Date of Judgment:December 4, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Download The Judgement Here