Maharashtra Government Faces Contempt Of Court Notice From Supreme Court

The Maharashtra government was intimidated by the Supreme Court on
Wednesday for submitting an affidavit that appeared to imply that the highest court disobeys the law.

New Delhi: A notice of disobedience of court was served to an IAS officer who was acting as an additional chief secretary in the state government by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, after the Maharashtra government filed an affidavit that appeared to indicate that the court does not adhere to the law.
"After reviewing an affidavit submitted by Rajesh Kumar, additional chief secretary in the revenue and forest department, in a case where the state was ordered to compensate a landowner in Pune for illegally encroaching upon his land and allotting him an alternative plot on forest land, we prima facie find such averments to be contemptuous in nature",

A bench led by Justice BR Gavai commented. According to Kumar's affidavit, in exchange for the landowner receiving ₹48.65 crore in compensation, the state would be willing to donate more than 24 acres of property in Pune. The state's first plan to give impacted party financial compensation
totalling more than ₹37 crores on August 14 was inferior to this offer.

"The applicant as well as the court may not approve the fresh calculation made by the Collector, Pune but it is the bounden duty of the state to follow the provisions of law and to arrive at a proper calculation",

The statement of claim said, The bench, which also included justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan, found this submission not in good taste and stated,

"The inference that could be formed is that this court and the applicant (landowner) do not respect the provisions of the law. He is an extra chief secretary. What sort of cop is he? To put it mildly, the estimate is based on whimsy".

"We direct Rajesh Kumar to remain personally present in this court on the next date and show cause why action for committing contempt against this court be not initiated against him",

The court said, setting September 9 as the date for the hearing. Advocate Nishant Katneshwarkar, representing the state, and Advocate Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, filing the affidavit in their capacity as Maharashtra's standing counsel, were reprimanded by the court for their failure to promptly clear the affidavit.

"You have served as your client's postman. You will file anything and your
officer will give you anything. It was your responsibility to determine whether to file this.”

After learning that the landowner's present market value was ₹250 crore, the court expressed disapproval of the state's actions in determining a "paltry" compensation based on the ready reckoner for land rates in 1989. Senior advocates Dhruv Mehta and Yash Deoraj made this revelation. The petitioner's land in Pune's village Pashan will fetch at least ₹125 crore even according to the 2022 ready reckoner of land valuation.

'In this regard, you are not being sincere. We deferred the subject on August 14 in response to your declaration that it is being evaluated at the highest level. You don't seem to be taking this issue very seriously. You requested time for something you don't actually do. You are riding this court without permission,

"The bench said, Housabai Haribhau Bhairat, whose family possessed the title to the land, filed a plea before the bench. In 1985, the highest court affirmed Housabai's victory over a land decree extending over 24 acres in Pune's village Pashan".

Following the state's unlawful seizure of the land in 1963, the Center was given permission to establish the Armament Research Development Establishment Institute (ARDEI), a division of the Union Ministry of Defense.

After an extended legal fight, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in 1985. Later, the state consented to give him other land. He was given land at Kondhwa Khurd village in 2004, but it turned out that this area was in restricted forest, where no development was allowed. The TN Godavarman case, which concerns the conservation of forests and wildlife, was heard by the top court bench since the alternative site was a reserved forest. The petitioner had to wait for justice for two generations before they could profit from the highest court's judgment, and the court voiced its frustration over this injustice on July 23.

Author:

Aarya Kadam (News Writer) is a final-year BBA student and a creative writer with a passion for current affairs and legal judgments.