Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kusum And Others vs Sri Prathmesh Kumar Vice Chairman ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9139
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3434 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt. Kusum And Others
Opposite Party :- Sri Prathmesh Kumar Vice Chairman Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav,Purnima Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mohit Jauhari,Ratnesh Chandra
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Writ C No. 2454 of 2014. The relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-
"22. It is apparent that because of ignorance of the revenue officials who did not looked into Khasra, the land of the petitioners were also shown to have been acquired along with other land of Gaon Sabha/Samaj of village Mohibullapur. The LDA has also sold off the land by including in its Sitapur Yojna and subsequent allottee has built a school over it. Such taking over of possession cannot be sustained this way, however. Since the petitioners have been deprived of their property for no fault of theirs, this court directs that compensation be given by the LDA to the petitioners on the basis of evaluation done as per the New Act of 2013. Such compensation be paid by the LDA to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
23. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed."
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the compliance affidavit has been filed enclosing therein the order dated 05.09.2024 whereby as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the compensation which is to be paid to the applicant has been determined.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that apart from the determination which has wrongly been made, the compensation has yet not been paid to the applicant, though it was directed by the writ Court.
It is further submitted that the order dated 05.09.2024 has been passed treating it as a consent of the applicant for the determination of the compensation by placing reliance upon the G.O. dated 21.03.2016.
On the other hand, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the reference of G.O. dated 21.03.2016 is there only for the purposes of determination of compensation which is to be paid to the applicant and it is not that the applicant has given his consent. The determination by the L.D.A. is not on the basis of the consent of the applicant.
It is further submitted that the amount calculated for compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is always open to challenge before the appropriate court of law, as stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed by the respondent.
It is further submitted that the respondent is ready to pay the compensation in case the applicant executed the sale deed of the plot in question.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the writ court has been complied with as such, for all practical purposes, the present contempt petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as infructuous but liberty may be given to the applicant to approach the competent court of law for enhancement of compensation as permissible under the law.
In view of above, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the applicant to avail the remedy, as may be permissible under law.
Notice, issued earlier, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 12.2.2025
Nitesh
