Allahabad High Court
Smt. Meera Singh vs Sri Uma Kant Tripathi, Additional ... on 16 May, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88741
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4767 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Meera Singh
Opposite Party :- Sri Uma Kant Tripathi, Additional District Magistrate And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramendra Asthana
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. The writ Court on 09.11.2021 while partly allowing the Writ-C No. 26794 of 2021 passed the following order;
"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and their subordinates etc. to determine and pay in accordance with law to him compensation for acquisition of his acquired land forming part of Plot No.65 (measuring 0.7440 Hectares or 1.83 acres) of Mauza Durendi, Pargana/Tehsil and District Banda.
The Judgement in Writ- C No.31817 of 2019 in the case of Sheikh Saud Uz Zaman Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others will also enure for the benefit of the present petitioner. We are not reproducing the judgement but we have been conveyed by the State that the facts are similar to the said matter also.
Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed.
We are thankful to Shri Ajay Prakash Paul, learned counsel for the State and Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner for getting this matter disposed of."
2. From perusal of the order of writ Court, it is clear that the Court, relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court rendered in Writ-C No. 31817 of 2019 (Sheikh Saud Uz Zaman Vs. State of U.P. and others), had directed that the benefit given in aforesaid case should also be accorded to the applicant.
3. According to applicant's counsel the compensation was to be paid for the land which was notified to be acquired by the State for constructing the road.
4. A compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of State on 11.10.2022 wherein paragraph no. 10 it has been stated that the committee which was constituted to consider the matter decided that compensation to be paid to the applicant is Rs. 18,36,000/- and pursuant to the decision of the committee, the said compensation has been paid to the applicant.
5. The applicant has disputed the computation of the amount on the ground that he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,27,36,000/-.
6. As it is a disputed question of fact and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot adjudicate as to the quantum of compensation payable to the applicant. The writ Court had relied upon decision of this Court in case of Sheikh Saud Uz Zaman (Supra) and had accorded the same benefit to the applicant for payment of compensation which the authorities had done, as such, no roving inquiry can be done by this Court exercising powers conferred under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act as per dictum of Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another, 2022 (1) SCC 101.
7. However, the applicant has a remedy of moving an application for referring the matter to the Court concerned for adjudicating the claim of the applicant as far as compensation is concerned.
8. In view of the said fact, contempt application is disposed off leaving it open to the applicant to move an application before the competent authority for referring the matter to a competent Court for adjudication of fair compensation.
9. Contempt notice stands discharged. File consign to record.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
Shekhar
