Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/27/2021 on 15 January, 2021
CLCON No. 27 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate for the
petitioners.
The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition
being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1372 of 2017,
contending thereof that his land was acquired
by the respondents, without payment of
compensation, hence he had sought for the
following reliefs in the writ petition:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to Grant Compensation of the
land acquired of the petitioners under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act at the
prevailing Market Rates.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no. 2 & 3 to clean the remaining
land of the petitioners besides the road."
When the writ petition was being finally
taken up on 14.09.2020, the State counsel
took a stand that in terms of the order dated
15.11.2019, the amount of compensation,
payable to the 12 residents of the concerned
village, which included the petitioners also,
their compensation has already been
determined and further compensation would be
paid to the concerned villagers including the
petitioners also.
The learned counsel for the petitioners of
the present contempt petition is interpreting
this part of the order as to be a direction which
was given by the Court, but it is not so; this
Court on considering its content, is of the view
that it was rather a statement which was made
by the learned State counsel; when the writ
petition was being decided. The ultimate
direction, which was given by the learned
Single Judge in its judgment dated 14.09.2020,
was contained in the concluding part of the
judgment which is quoted hereunder:-
"In view of the statement made by learned
State Counsel, the relief no. 1, as claimed in the
writ petition does not survive. Regarding relief
clause no. 2, petitioners shall be at liberty to
make representation to the Competent Authority,
who shall look into the matter and take
appropriate decision, in accordance with law.
This Court hopes and expects that the
amount of compensation shall be paid to the
petitioners, as early as possible, but not later
than three months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ
petition stands disposed of."
By the aforesaid directions, the petitioner
was directed to submit his representation, so
far it related to the relief clause no. 2, and the
said representation was directed to be decided
by the competent authority. The learned
counsel for the petitioners has argued that
despite of the order dated 14.09.2020 being
served, the respondent had, by virtue of an
order No. 1965 dated 12.11.2020, had rejected
the representation of the petitioner and has
rather declined to pay the compensation to the
petitioner and it had been further directed that
the petitioner would be entitled to get the
compensation in accordance with the provisions
of Section 30 of the Act.
In view of the said fact that the direction
given by the judgment dated 14.09.2020,
directing the respondent to take a decision on
the representation of the petitioners, the
respondents have already decided the matter
by an order dated 12.11.2020, if at all, the
petitioners had any grievances, contending
thereof that they have not been paid with the
compensation, they will have to avail their
remedy, available to them under law, against
the order dated 12.11.2020, the present
contempt petition would not be maintainable,
because the direction was confined for to the
decision on the representation of the petitioner
which has already been taken by the
respondent.
Consequently, this Court is of the view
that the contempt petition would not be
tenable, the same is rejected with liberty open
to the petitioners to approach an appropriate
forum to redress their grievances as against
the order dated 12.11.2020.
Contempt is accordingly closed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
15.01.2021
Mahinder/
