Contempt Court Cannot Grant Fresh Relief Beyond Original Order; Compliance With Direction Ends Contempt: Calcutta High Court
Observing that contempt jurisdiction is meant to secure compliance with court orders and not to grant fresh or additional reliefs, the Calcutta High Court has held that once authorities implement a writ direction to mutate names in land records, petitioners cannot seek further corrections such as change in the nature or character of the land through contempt proceedings. The Court emphasised...
Observing that contempt jurisdiction is meant to secure compliance with court orders and not to grant fresh or additional reliefs, the Calcutta High Court has held that once authorities implement a writ direction to mutate names in land records, petitioners cannot seek further corrections such as change in the nature or character of the land through contempt proceedings. The Court emphasised that contempt powers are supervisory and punitive in nature and cannot be used to enlarge the scope of the original judgment.
A Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas was dealing with a contempt petition alleging wilful non-compliance of an earlier order passed in a writ proceeding which had directed the State authorities to record the petitioners' names in the Record of Rights (RoR). The petitioners had purchased several parcels of land through a court-supervised sale arising out of winding-up proceedings and had filed multiple applications seeking mutation. After their requests remained pending for years, they approached the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and subsequently the High Court, which in September 2023 allowed their plea and directed mutation of their names. The Supreme Court later dismissed the challenge to that judgment.
During the contempt proceedings, the State submitted that out of 40 mutation applications, 39 had been allowed and the remaining one was kept pending only for want of details. Eventually, all 40 mutations were completed and the petitioners' names were duly recorded in the RoR. A compliance affidavit was also filed before the Court confirming the same.
However, the petitioners argued that the order had not been complied with in its “letter and spirit” because the character of the land continued to be recorded as “karkhana” (factory) in the RoR, even though the company had been wound up and no factory existed. Senior Advocate Saptangshu Basu contended that the authorities ought to have corrected the land classification suo motu and their failure to do so amounted to contempt.
The Bench rejected this contention, holding that the original writ order only directed mutation of names and did not contain any direction to alter the nature or classification of the land. It noted that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act provides a separate statutory mechanism for change in land character and such relief cannot be introduced for the first time in contempt proceedings. Since the specific direction regarding mutation had already been complied with, there was no violation of the Court's order.
Emphasising the limits of contempt jurisdiction, the Court observed that a contempt court cannot issue new directions or grant supplemental reliefs that were not part of the original judgment. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that an order in contempt cannot become a substitute for fresh adjudication or modification of substantive rights.
Holding that the writ directions stood fully complied with, the Court declined to proceed further in contempt and left it open to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies under law if they sought change in the nature and character of the land.
Case: ABHIJIT TIE UP (P) LTD AND ORS Vs VIVEK KUMAR STATE OF WB ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS
Case No: CPAN 820 of 2025