SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) v. N. V ASUDEV A RAO & Ors.

Acquisition/Resumption of land by Government without payment of ex-gratia-Challenged by assignee/owner-Single judge of High Court directing authorities to consider representation of petitioners for payment of ex-gratia-Not complied with by authorities Contempt petition-Single Judge directed payment of ex-gratia for D entire extent of the land-LP A dismissed by High Court-On appeal Held: LPA maintainable-Neither Single Judge nor Division Bench of the High Court addressed the basic issue and came to an abrupt conclusion-Hence, the order passed by the High Court set aside The authorities directed to consider the matter afresh-Directions issued E Judicial restraint-High Court distinguished the judgment delivered by Supreme Court on the ground that no elaborate discussion in the judgment-Such an observation by the High Court violative of judicial discipline. F The land in question, the Government land, was allegedly assigned to the respondents on the basis ofpattas. Later, the land was acquisitioned by the authorities without payment of ex-gratia. Respondents filed writ petitions contending that the authorities have resumed their land without payment of ex-gratia. Single Judge of G the High Court disposed of the writ petitions directing respondents to make a detailed representation to the authorities and the authorities were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate 625 H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A order. The authorities did not make ex-gratia payments to respondents. Aggrieved respondents filed Contempt petitions before the High Court. The Single judge of the High Court directed payment of ex-gratia payment for the entire extent of the land. Appellant authorities and others filed LP As before the High Court against the B order passed by the Single Judge which were dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. Appellant-authority contented that the Single Judge of the High Court has no jurisdiction to give any direction in the manner done while dealing with the contempt petitions and that the LP A was not C maintainable. Respondents-assignee ofland submitted that there was clear violation of the order passed by the High Court in the writ petitions and there was blatant attempt by the authorities to deny their D legitimate claim; and that the land was resumed on and nothing has been paid to them as compensation. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It appears that there is also dispute about the area, E so in the contempt petition no direction could have been given in the manner done. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that the LPA is not maintainable. In view of what has been stated in Midnapore Peoples 'Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and Ors., the LPA was clearly maintainable. (630-F]