Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Contempt Petition; Holds High Court Failed to Examine Clear Directions and Must Reconsider Matter Afresh

Case Name: Bhaskar Govind Gavate (now deceased) through Legal Heirs v. State of Maharashtra & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1379
Date of Judgment/Order: 04 December 2025
Bench: P. S. Narasimha, J.; Atul S. Chandurkar, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court erred in dismissing Contempt Petition No. 315 of 2003 on the ground that the order dated 17 January 2003 in Writ Petition No. 3412 of 1992 was “unclear” or “capable of two interpretations.” The Court ruled that the operative directions in the 2003 order clearly required the Special Land Acquisition Officer to hand over possession of State-held land to the original petitioner on 22 January 2003, and that unutilised land with MIDC was to be handed over for subsequent delivery. Since the petitioner specifically alleged non-compliance and sought examination of the record, the High Court was required to adjudicate the grievance on merits. Its failure to do so warranted interference.

Summary: The original petitioner sought possession of land and completion of acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition No. 3412 of 1992. By a detailed order dated 17 January 2003, the High Court recorded State and MIDC statements and directed possession of government-held land to be handed over on 22 January 2003, with unutilised MIDC land also to be returned for delivery. Alleging non-compliance, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 315 of 2003. The State and MIDC filed affidavits asserting that land had been acquired under the 1970 award and possession had already been transferred to MIDC decades earlier. The petitioner denied this, stating no such award was produced earlier and that possession was never handed over. The High Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding the 2003 order ambiguous. The Supreme Court examined the pleadings, affidavits, and the High Court’s own interim directions calling for original records and concluded that the 2003 order contained explicit directions applicable to all writ petitioners. The Court found that the High Court failed to engage with the petitioner’s core grievance—that the directed possession was not delivered—and failed to examine the materials placed before it, especially regarding the alleged 1970 award. This warranted remand.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 26 February 2022 and restored Contempt Petition No. 315 of 2003 for fresh consideration. It directed the High Court to adjudicate the contempt petition on merits in light of the specific directions contained in the 17 January 2003 order and the observations made by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that it expressed no view on the merits of the parties’ rival claims and that the alleged 1970 award was not produced before it. The civil appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.