A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Rupa & Co. Ltd. obtained a formal allotment from the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HIDCO) by letter dated 6 April 2011 for 30 cottahs of Plot No. 11E/17, New Town, Kolkata on freehold terms for Rs. 4,00,92,000/ and paid the full amount. HIDCO later rescinded or sought to modify the allotment first suggesting leasehold terms (99 years) and subsequently proposing changes under a new land policy which led the appellants to challenge the action before the Calcutta High Court.

The Division Bench allowed their appeal on 10 February 2020, issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing execution and registration of the deed of sale/conveyance in accordance with the original allotment. HIDCO’s Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on 19 July 2021. Alleging non-compliance, the appellants pursued contempt proceedings. Despite repeated High Court directions and notices to the Chief Secretary to ensure compliance, the High Court on 9 February 2024 referred the matter to mediation and appointed a former Judge as mediator against the express resistance of the appellants.

This Court found that referral to mediation was legally impermissible where a clear mandamus had been issued and not obeyed; mediation cannot be forced and is inappropriate when the State’s conduct amounted to aggravation of contempt and an attempt to defeat the High Court’s writ. The impugned High Court order was quashed; this Court directed the Chief Secretary to ensure compliance in letter and spirit and fixed a personal show-cause date for non-compliance.

Keywords: Article 226, mandamus, contempt, mediation, obedience to judicial orders, Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute springs from a government housing authority’s change of position after accepting payment for a land allotment. HIDCO’s letter dated 6 April 2011 promised freehold conveyance for a stated price; the promissory foundation and the appellants’ full payment created concrete expectations and contractual reliance. Thereafter HIDCO, citing electoral Model Code concerns and later a revised land policy, altered the legal character of the allotment first to a 99-year lease and later proposing modified lease terms thereby rescinding the original freehold promise.

The appellants litigated, and the Calcutta High Court Division Bench concluded that the State’s action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, allowing the appeal and directing execution of sale and conveyance in terms of the original allotment. Despite final judicial pronouncements (the Division Bench order and this Court’s dismissal of HIDCO’s SLP), executive actors delayed or proposed alternatives and later conditioned compliance on payment of market value effectively seeking to nullify the earlier mandamus. The High Court, while entertaining contempt proceedings to enforce its order, in an interlocutory move referred the matter to mediation over the appellants’ protest.

This tactical turn prompted the present appeals and the Supreme Court’s focus on the proper boundary between consensual ADR and compulsory compliance with a judicial mandamus.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

HIDCO issued an allotment letter dated 6 April 2011 offering Plot No. 11E/17 on freehold basis at Rs.13.364 lakhs per cottah, aggregating to Rs.4,00,92,000/; the appellants deposited the full amount as required. Thereafter, on 24 August 2012, HIDCO informed the appellants the allotment would be altered to a 99-year lease due to the Model Code of Conduct; appellants responded on 16 November 2012, disputing the legality and asserting equivalence between sale and long lease under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and asking for revocation of the rescission. A draft lease was forwarded on 12 October 2012, and after the Government’s land policy of 26 December 2012, HIDCO sent another letter on 14 January 2013 proposing further changes.

Appellants challenged the action; a Single Judge dismissed their writ, but the Division Bench allowed the First Misc. Appeal on 10 February 2020, finding arbitrariness and granting a writ mandating conveyance on the original allotment terms (prayer clause (g)). HIDCO’s SLP was dismissed by this Court (19 July 2021). Allegeing non-compliance, appellants filed contempt petitions (CPAN Nos. 384/2021; 88/2023; 1453/2022). The High Court repeatedly pressed the State for compliance and warned of contempt measures, yet HIDCO and the Cabinet purported to require payment of current market value (Rs.12,51,47,722/-) minus sums already paid, demanding a substantial balance.

On 9 February 2024 the High Court, despite prior strong directions, referred the dispute to mediation and appointed a former Judge as mediator a step opposed by appellants and challenged before this Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a High Court may refer parties to mediation in contempt proceedings where it has already issued a writ of mandamus and directed compliance?
ii. Whether mediation can be compelled over the objection of a party who has secured a final judicial order?
iii. Whether the State’s insistence on fresh payment at current market rates after a mandamus constitutes aggravated contempt and an attempt to defeat judicial process?
iv. Whether the Supreme Court should remand contempt proceedings to the High Court or direct immediate compliance and supervisory orders?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellants argued that they had a subsisting right flowing from the allotment letter and the Division Bench order; having paid the price, they were entitled to freehold conveyance in terms of the allotment.
ii. They opposed mediation as improper, non-consensual, and an impermissible dilution of the High Court’s own earlier directions and contempt adjudication; mediation would enable the State to re-negotiate a court-mandated right and thus defeat the mandamus.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The State and HIDCO contended executive and policy considerations intervened (Model Code, subsequent land policy); officers could not effect conveyance without State approval.
ii. Respondents urged the appeals were against an interlocutory High Court order and that contempt proceedings remained pending, so this Court ought not to interfere; they also suggested equitable balancing by requiring payment of market value so that state equities are preserved.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Article 226, Constitution of India — High Court writ jurisdiction and binding nature of its mandamus.
ii. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — legal character of sale vs long lease and transfer consequences relied upon by the parties.

I) JUDGEMENT

This Court allowed the appeals and quashed the High Court’s 9 February 2024 order referring the matter to mediation. The operative reasoning rests on two pillars:

(a) the rule that a final writ of mandamus from a High Court, unmodified by this Court, must be obeyed in letter and spirit by the State and its instrumentalities; and

(b) mediation is a consensual process that cannot be imposed where a party opposes it, particularly where the State’s conduct entailed defiance of judicial commands.

The Court observed that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had on several occasions insisted upon compliance and issued notice to the Chief Secretary; having found arbitrariness and issued mandamus on 10 February 2020 (and with this Court declining HIDCO’s SLP on 19 July 2021) the State’s attempt to negotiate an alternative allotment or to demand payment of current market value was tantamount to aggravated contempt and a stratagem to nullify judicial relief.

The referral to mediation was based solely on the Advocate General’s statement that the State would offer alternative land a posture insufficient to override the appellants’ right or to justify suspending enforcement of mandamus. The Court held mediation cannot be thrust upon a party and is inappropriate as an instrument to bypass or dilute a judicial decree.

Consequently, the impugned order was quashed; rather than remanding the matter (which would lengthen delay), this Court directly directed the Chief Secretary to ensure immediate compliance and fixed a personal attendance date for the Chief Secretary to show cause if there is non-compliance. The Court emphasized the majesty of law and that obedience to High Court writs is constitutionally mandatory.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal rule is that where a High Court has issued an unmodified mandamus under Article 226, the executive must comply; judicial authority cannot be undermined by compelled ADR. Mediation is a consensual tool and cannot be used to suspend or substitute the enforcement of a clear judicial writ. The State’s unilateral re-pricing or offering substitute land after judicial defeat is an effort to frustrate the mandamus and may constitute aggravated contempt. Thus, courts must protect the enforceability of their decrees and avoid procedural devices that enable the State to delay or defeat judicial relief.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court, while quashing the mediation order, noted practical considerations: ordinarily matters might be remanded to the High Court for contempt adjudication, but given prolonged delay (nearly 12 years), further remand would perpetuate injustice; accordingly, supervisory directions and a specific compliance timetable were issued as appropriate supervisory measures. The Court reiterated mediation’s utility in appropriate consensual contexts but cautioned against its use where it would subvert judicially-declared rights.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. A court should not refer parties to mediation where a valid mandamus exists and a party objects.
ii. Mediation must be voluntary; consent of both parties is essential.
iii. Where public authorities are bound by judicial orders, they must comply in letter and spirit; any alternative proposal requires the court’s sanction and cannot be used to delay compliance.
iv. If non-compliance persists, courts may exercise contempt powers, appoint receivers or special officers, or issue personal show-cause directions against senior officers (including the Chief Secretary).

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment robustly defends the enforceability of judicial writs against executive inertia and strategic delay. It clarifies that consensual ADR cannot be weaponized to defeat concluded judicial outcomes; mediation is an adjunct to, not a substitute for, judicial enforcement. The Court’s refusal to remit the matter for further procedural tinkering preferring direct supervisory directions and a personal show-cause requirement signals impatience with protracted executive non-compliance.

For practitioners, the case affirms that once a High Court issues an unaltered mandamus, the State must either comply or face contempt consequences; attempts to reprice or substitute the benefit by administrative fiat will attract strict judicial scrutiny. The ruling strengthens judicial authority in property-allotment contexts and serves as a precedent for enforcing mandamus against governmental corporations and the State when actions are arbitrary.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Rupa & Co. Ltd. v. Firhad Hakim & Ors., 2025 2 S.C.R. 648 (S.C.).

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India, Art. 226.
ii. Transfer of Property Act, 1882.