Allahabad High Court
Pushpa Singh And 2 Others vs Sanjay Kumar Khatri, District ... on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 913 of 2023
Applicant :- Pushpa Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Khatri, District Magistrate
Counsel for Applicant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Pursuant to the order dated 26.04.2023, applicant no.3-Sri Awadhesh Singh is present today before this Court, who is identified by Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicants.
The writ Court on 13.12.2021, while disposing of Writ-C No.32899 of 2021, had passed the following order:-
"1. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the possession of land owned by them was taken by the State without acquisition thereof or payment of compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the State submitted that for redressal of such grievance a Committee was constituted by State vide Government Order dated May 12, 2016. In case, petitioners approach the authority, their claim shall be decided in terms of the time fixed therein. He further submitted that this Court has also issued a direction on November 2, 2021 in Writ-C No. 25425 of 2021 (Ram Kailash Nishad and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) for decision of all such pending applications.
3. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and considering the submissions as noticed above, in our opinion, it will be appropriate that the issues be examined by the Committee at this stage as certain factual aspects need consideration.
4. Let all the petitioners file their applications before the Committee and, in case, such applications are filed, the same shall be considered in the terms of time fixed in the aforesaid Government Order.
5. The petition is disposed of, accordingly."
The writ Court had required the applicants to move an application before the Committee which was to be considered in pursuance to the Government Order.
In the affidavit of compliance, filed on behalf of the opposite party, it has been stated that as per Government Order dated 12.05.2016, the Committee was constituted and the matter was inquired and it was found that plot no.80 area 0.0828 hectare has been acquired for construction of approach road. The share of the applicants was determined as 0.1370 hectare. The State Government had allotted the compensation of Rs.10,27,500/- and the said amount had been received by the District Magistrate on 19.04.2023. The said fact has been stated in paras 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit of compliance.
In Para 9 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that the applicant no.3 was informed on 21.04.2023 for receiving of the amount of compensation, but he has not turned up, nor he has executed sale deed in favour of the Government.
Today, when the Court interacted with the applicant no.3, he submitted that the rate which has been given by the State Government is Rs.750/-, while circle rate as fixed is Rs.4600/-. According to the applicant, officers had mislead him and he has not been paid compensation which is due to him.
After hearing applicant no.3, in person, and the counsel representing the parties, this Court finds that the order of the writ Court was only to the extent to the applicants to move applications before the Committee which was to be considered and decided as per the Government Order.
According to the State, the applications were processed as per the Government Order of 2016 and compensation has been determined and the said amount has been released by the State Government and is lying with the District Magistrate, Prayagraj. Further, the applicants are not ready to accept the amount and are claiming enhanced compensation.
This is a Court of execution and not the Court of adjudication and this Court cannot dwell into disputed questions of fact and cannot determine the compensation payable to the applicants while exercising power under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Recently, the Apex Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held as under:-
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
In view of the dictum of Apex Court, this Court finds that the disputed questions of fact, especially relating to the payment of compensation as claimed by the applicants, cannot be decided in the contempt jurisdiction.
Present contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed.
However, it is open to the applicants to execute the sale deed in favour of the State Government and get the amount of the compensation from the District Magistrate, Prayagraj or approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.
Order Date :- 5.5.2023
SK Goswami
