( 1 ) THIS contempt case is filed by the petitioner by contending that the respondents flouted the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15301 of 1996 dated 5-8-1996 as modified in review WPMP No. 3674 of 1997, dated 20-2-1997 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In other words the action of the respondents in not apportioning the compensation for the lands belonging to the Temple which arc under the enjoyment and possession of the petitioner as a lessee and stands acquired for public purpose by the Government, is assailed in this Writ Petition as well as Contempt Case.

( 2 ) THE claim of the petitioner \^s contested by the respondents by stating that by the time the notification was issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 28-1-1996, the petitioner suffered an order of eviction and thereby he lost the right of cultivating tenant. Hence the question of paying compensation to the petitioner by apportioning the compensation received by the landlord docs not arise. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not bring the true facts to the notice of the Court at the time of the disposal of the writ petition and the review WPMP. H