Point of Law : Contempt Case - wilful disobedience - Applicant is aggrieved by the compensation so awarded by the State authorities, he may approach the forum available under the law challenging the said order, but no contempt proceedings are maintainable as there is no wilful disobedience of the order of the writ Court.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Shiva Kant Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri R.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This contempt proceeding under Section 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been initiated against the opposite parties for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in Writ-C No.17534 of 2019 (Prem Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others).

3. Case, in nutshell, is that the applicant who is the owner with transferable rights of Gata Nos. 275, 276, 277, 296 and 297, measuring 3519 Sq. Metre, his land was taken over for construction of mini by-pass without adverting to acquire the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. The applicant had approached for payment of compensation which was not paid as per the Government Order dated 19.03.2015 and 12.05.2016, the applicant was constrained to approach this Court and file writ petition.

5. The writ Court, on 30.07.2019, directed the applicant to file a comprehensive representation ventilating all his grievances which he had taken in the writ petition before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly who was to decide the same by reasoned and speaking order within three months. When no action was taken by the opposite party no.1, the present contempt proceedings were initiated.

6. Initially, on 19th April, 2022, the opposite parties filed their affidavit of compliance stating therein that the District Magistrate, on 13.04.2020 had constituted a Committee to decide the claim of the applicant as per the Government Order dated 19.03.2015. The Committee enquired and determined the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.27,44,82,000/-and submitted its report to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate on 13.04.2022 had made an endorsement on the report of the Committee, and forwarded it for approval to the Commissioner, Bareilly Division. The approval was awaited.

7. The case was taken up on 19.04.2022 and the Court directed the matter to be placed on 10.05.2022 and by that time, the payment was to be released, in case of noncompliance, the opposite parties were to remain present in the Court. On 10.05.2022, the lawyers were on strike and the matter was deferred for 17.05.2022 and the officers were required to be present before the Court. On 17.05.2022, affidavit of compliance was filed by all the three officers who were present in the Court and are arrayed as opposite parties.

8. In the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly, in paragraph 11, it is stated that the Commissioner on 05.05.2022 made an objection to the report forwarded by the District Magistrate and directed that the matter should be revisited in the light of the Government Order dated 19.03.2015. On the same day, the Public Works Department also submitted its report/objections, wherein it was stated that the acquisition proceedings started in 2001 and the possession was transferred in 2003. The land in question was recorded in the name of one Smt. Bhagola Devi W/o late Mishri Lal, Janki Prasad, Prem Shankar (applicant) and Sri Devi Das sons of late Mishri Lal. It was further stated that the names of the co-tenure holders were recorded in the revenue records over the agricultural land. The revenue records does indicate that the land was recorded as abadi. The objections and the reports of Commissioner, Bareilly and Public Works Department have been brought on record as Annexures 1 and 2 to the affidavit of compliance dated 10.05.2022. Thereafter, on 06.05.2022, the District Magistrate constituted a new Committee for determining the share of the applicant. The Committee submitted its report on 07.05.2022 mentioning therein that land in question was agricultural and not abadi at the time of notification/acquisition, and share of applicant was 1/3rd.

9. The Valuation Appr