Back
Prem Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Pandey Special Land Acquisition Officer/City Magistrate, Bareilly – Respondent
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 grievan
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 ....
The court's jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with the writ court order and does not extend to adjudicating the quantum of compensation.
The appellant committed contempt by willfully disobeying a court order directing the deposit of compensation, emphasizing the imperative for compliance with judicial directives.
Contempt proceedings cannot substitute for enforcement of binding court decisions; non-compliance must involve clear disregard of valid orders. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is limited to ens....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the appealability of a contempt Judge's order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules....
Court held that non-payment of compensation to landowners results in lapse of acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of proper deposit per statutory requirements.
The rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings, and the Court cannot clarify the ambiguity in the order or traverse beyond the order while dealing with an application....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
