Chattisgarh High Court
Abhayram Patel vs Rajesh Sukumar Toppo on 27 January, 2025
1/4
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 124 of 2025
ABHAYRAM PATEL versus RAJESH SUKUMAR TOPPO
Order Sheet
27/01/2025 Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, counsel appears along with Ms.
Apurva Nigam, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Anup Majumdar, counsel for the respondent No.4, as
'Vakalatnama' has already been filed by him on behalf of
respondent No.4.
Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, counsel for respondent No.6,
appears on instructions.
Heard.
Issue notice to the respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 5 as per
rules, as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated
against them for their willful disobedience of the order of this
Court dated 27.11.2024 passed in CONT No.1355/2024.
Process Fee be paid within a week.
Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submits that he
will file 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of respondent No.6 till the next
date of hearing.
This Court has passed the following order in WP(C)
No.5480/2022 vide order dated 12.12.2022 in paras 6 & 7:-
"6. Be that as it may, let the petitioners again
approach the respondent No.3 or 4, as the case
may be by way of a suitable representation within a
period of 30 days seeking for interest from the date
the actual possession was taken from the
petitioners, till date the award was passed. Upon
such representation being made, the respondent
No.3 or 4, as the case may be shall take an
appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law
and also taking note of the judgment of the
Supreme Court referred to in the preceding
paragraph at the earliest preferably within a period
of 90 days from the date of receipt of representation
of the petitioners.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of."
Since order was not complied with, therefore, contempt
case bearing CONT No.1355/2024 was filed by the applicant. In
that contempt case, advocate appearing for respondents had
made contentions and filed communication, dated 17.10.2024
issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land
Acquisition Officer Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) addressed to
the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Survey and Bairrage
Construction Division No.1 Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.),
wherein the computation chart has been prepared and Executive
Engineer has been asked to make available amount of
Rs.5,69,51,032/- so that the amount can be disbursed to the
respective petitioners. Learned counsel had further seeks time of
45 days for disbursement of amount to the petitioner, pursuant to
the computation chart dated 17.10.2024 prepared by SDO.
Based on aforesaid contention, this Court has passed the
following order in CONT No.1355/2024 dated 27.11.2024 in
paras 5 & 6:-
"5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case. Since the submission has been made by
learned counsel for the respondents that they will
make the payment within a period of 45 days from
today, the contempt petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to comply the order of
this Court within a period of 45 days from today. Rule
is discharged.
6. However, it is made clear that if the amount is not
disbursed within the specified time period, the
petitioner would be at liberty to approach before this
Court in an appropriate proceedings."
Since order was not complied with by the respondent
authorities within 45 days, therefore, applicant preferred the
instant second contempt petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that
despite undertaking given by the respondent authorities,
compensation which is an interest part of the amount of award
from the date of dispossession, has not been paid, therefore,
contempt proceeding may be initiated.
Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would submit that
after calculation of the amount of award payable to the applicant
and other petitioners, communication (Annexure-C/2) dated
17.10.2024 has been made by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-
cum-Land Acquisition Officer Dabhara to the Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Department District Raigarh (C.G.), but said
amount has not been deposited by the Water Resources
Department till today.
In reply, counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would
submit that though in compliance of Annexure-C/2 dated
17.10.2024, respondent No.4 has wrote a letter (Annexure-C/3)
dated 07.11.2024 to the Superintending Engineer, Kelo Pariyojna
Bandh Mandal Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) for sanction of
Rs.5,69,51,032/- in respect of the applicant and further
Rs.14,72,46,387/- for other similarly situated persons, total Rs.
20,41,97,419/-. He further submits that though this letter has
been written by respondent No.4 for sanction of the amount, but
applicant has not been dispossessed from his land in question.
Having considered the aforesaid contentions of the
counsel for the parties and further considering the documents,
particularly Annexure-C/2 and Annexure-C/3, it seems that
respondent officials are playing with the farmers. On one hand
respondent No.6/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land
Acquisition Officer Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) has written a
letter (Annexure-C/2) to the Irrigation Department for depositing
amount, which is to be paid to the applicant and supporting
aforesaid letter, respondent No.4/Executive Engineer is also
writing letter Annexure-C/3 to Superintending Engineer for
sanction of the compensation amount not only payable to the
applicant, but also to the other similarly situated land owners.
And now, counsel appearing for respondent No.4 is submitting
that applicant has not been dispossessed yet, this conduct of
respondent No.4 & 6 seems to be not only highly unlawful, but
also contains malice, which cannot be appreciated.
If, applicant has not been dispossessed from his said
land, then question arises that why respondents No.4 & 6 have
made aforesaid communication and if, aforesaid letters written
by them are false and illegal, then appropriate action is required
to be taken against them by their superior officials, because on
one hand statement has been made before this Court that they
will disbursed the amount of compensation and also wrote letters
(Annexure-C/2 & Annexure-C/3), but now respondent No.6 is
saying that applicant has not been dispossessed from the land in
question.
In view of above respondents No.2, 4 & 6 are directed to
appear in person before this Court on the next date of hearing.
List the case on 17.02.2025.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Digitally
signed by
DEEPTI
DEEPTI JHA
JHA NIRALA
NIRALA Date:
2025.01.29
12:14:39
+0530
