Hon'Ble Sharad Kumar Sharma vs Whereby The Direction Was Issued ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 50 UK

CLCON No.135 of 2020
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent no.3.

The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment, which was rendered on 11.03.2019 in Special Appeal No.114 of 2019, Ashok Singh and another vs. State of Uttrakhand in its para 18, had passed the following orders:-

"18. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under appeal and, instead, direct the State Government to issue a notification under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act, complete the process of acquisition, and to pay compensation to the appellants-writ petitioners in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Act at the earliest. The entire exercise, commencing from issuing a notification under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act, passing an award and for payment of compensation in terms thereof, shall be completed with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

Whereby the direction was issued to the respondents to issue a notification under Section 11(1) of the 2013, Act and to complete the land acquisition process and to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

On the basis of the statement, which had been made by Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent no.3 that the notification for acquisition has already been issued and the compensation has also been paid to the petitioner, consequently on that exclusive statement this contempt petition is closed.

Notices, issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.

However, it would be subject to the liberty open to the petitioner that in case if he contends that the order has not been complied, it will be open for him to file a recall.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 06.01.2021 Arti