https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194333 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. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jan 2024 12:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194333 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194333