Contempt jurisdiction cannot reopen settled merits and must enforce final orders, including lawful action against unauthorised constructions.

Contempt jurisdiction is limited to enforcing final orders and cannot be used to reopen the merits, reassess equities, or operate as a de facto review of the original land acquisition dispute. The Court rejected attempts to dilute the earlier directions on the basis of later developments and held that compliance with the existing mandate was required. It also clarified that any clerical mistake in the earlier High Court order could not be corrected in contempt proceedings and had to be addressed before the High Court. The planned development authority was directed to proceed according to law against unauthorised constructions and to implement the prior directions expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in contempt proceedings, the Court could reopen the merits of the earlier land acquisition and allied orders, and what consequential directions were necessary to secure compliance with the earlier directions regarding delivery of possession and removal of unauthorised constructions.

Analysis: The jurisdiction in contempt is confined to examining whether the earlier order has attained finality and whether it has been complied with. It cannot be used to reassess the correctness of the earlier decision, revisit equities that were available in the original proceedings, or grant a de facto review. The earlier directions had already determined the entitlement of the petitioner-society, and the respondents had also given assurances before the Court. The plea that changed circumstances or later constructions should dilute the earlier directions was rejected. At the same time, the Court held that any apparent clerical mistake in the earlier High Court order could not be corrected by it in contempt jurisdiction and that the appropriate forum for such rectification was the High Court itself. The statutory authority responsible for planned development was directed to act in accordance with law against unauthorised constructions and to implement the existing directions expeditiously.

Conclusion: The contempt jurisdiction was confined to enforcement of the existing orders, and the respondents were not permitted to avoid compliance by reopening settled issues. The petition was disposed of with directions to implement the prior orders and to proceed according to law against unauthorised constructions, leaving any clerical correction to the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with enforcement-oriented directions, preserving the finality of the earlier judgments while requiring lawful steps for delivery of possession and action against unauthorised development.

Ratio Decidendi: In contempt proceedings, the Court enforces final orders and cannot re-adjudicate the merits or equities of the original dispute, though it may issue directions to secure compliance with the existing mandate.

---