Allahabad High Court
Smt Nirmla Vishwakarma And 7 Others vs Shri Vijay Vishwas Pant Commissioner ... on 1 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17980
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 501 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt Nirmla Vishwakarma And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- Shri Vijay Vishwas Pant Commissioner And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharda Vishwakarma,Arvind Kumar,Awadhesh Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar Sharma along with Ms. Sharda Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Arun Kumar who appears for the opposite party.
The matter was taken up pre-recess, however, the Court required the learned counsel for the applicants to serve a copy of the contempt petition upon Shri Arun Kumar who appeared for the development authority in the writ petition against whom the present contempt petition has been preferred.
Now the matter has been taken up post-recess and Shri Arun Kumar is present before this Court and he has made a statement at bar that he has perused the file and he is in a position to make his submission.
The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in Writ C No. 39924 of 2023 wherein the writ petition preferred by the applicants came to be disposed of on 21.11.2023 in the terms of the judgment in the case of Writ C No. 37460 of 2023, Shayam Dev and others Vs. State of U.P. and others wherein the issue involved in the said writ petition as well as the present contempt petition is with regard to the residents of Chhatnag Road, Pargana Jhunsi, Tehsil Phulpu, District Prayagraj wherein apprehensions had been made with respect to the fact that the private land of the applicants shall be occupied by the development authority without paying compensation and without following due process of law.
This Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents in the writ petition and opposite parties in the contempt petition not to take the land of the applicants or utilize it for widening of the road without following due procedure of law and in case the land owned by the applicants is being utilized for widening of the road or any other work , the same would firstly be acquired and then authority would proceed to utilize the land for road widening or otherwise.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier also notices had been issued which are annexure 2 starting from page 34 and on-wards regarding under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 with regard to the allegations of illegal constructions being made which were hampering the road widening. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the said notice s issued dated 08.09.2023 and 25.09.2023 by the opposite parties were subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid writ petition.
However, Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that since the notices were issued on 08.09.2023 and 25.09.2023 as per the applicants and since no effective reply was submitted thus final orders have been passed on 10.01.2024. He submits that there is no case of contempt is made out as the development authority and the opposite parties are not widening the road, in such a manner, so as to include the land of the applicants as applicants' land would only being included for road widening that too after acquisition proceedings and payments of compensation in that regard or through negotiation. He further submits that already once the show cause notices were challenged and the writ court did not interfere the same then no contempt lies against the parties particularly, when by means of show cause notices, the applicants were required to substantiate the fact that these constructions were not illegal and prior to inclusion of the area under the provisions of Section 3 of 1973 Act.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no case of contempt petition is made out, particularly, when Shri Arun Kumar who appears for the opposite party has made a statement at bar that the land of the applicants are not being put to road widening, as in case, they are put to road widening then before it, either acquisition proceedings or negotiations will be made and compensation will be paid.
Accordingly the contempt application stands consigned to record, leaving it open to the applicants to challenge the ultimate orders passed on the show cause notices before appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
A. Prajapati
