Wilful contempt for ignoring binding land-use directions, with compliance ordered and punishment withheld despite deliberate disobedience.

Wilful disobedience of an earlier Supreme Court judgment was examined in relation to land-use permissions for the disputed lands. The Court noted that title and ancillary land-use issues had already been finally resolved, so the authorities were bound to comply with the earlier directions in letter and spirit. Fresh objections, including restricting permission to non-residential use, were treated as an attempt to defeat the judgment and amounted to contempt. The Court found wilful contempt, required compliance with the earlier directions within four weeks, and declined to impose punishment while warning against future non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents had wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the earlier judgment and directions of the Court dated 15.10.2004, and whether consequential directions were required for grant of non-agricultural and building permissions in respect of the lands covered by the dispute.

Analysis: The Court found that the earlier judgment had already finally resolved the title and ancillary land-use issues and had issued binding directions requiring the authorities to act in accordance with that decision. Despite this, the respondents raised fresh objections and declined to comply with the directions, including by limiting the permission to non-residential use and by resisting grant of permissions for the lands covered by the judgment. The Court held that such conduct amounted to a deliberate and contumacious attempt to defeat its , and that the authorities were bound to obey the judgment in letter and spirit. While the Court found the respondents guilty of contempt, it took a lenient view and did not impose punishment, but required compliance within a fixed time and warned against future disobedience.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of willful contempt for non-compliance with the earlier judgment, and they were directed to grant the requisite residential use and other permissions and to comply with the earlier directions within four weeks, though no punishment was imposed.

---