Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Smt. Manorama Kuchhal and another - Applicants
Versus
Brijesh Narain Singh D.M./Collector NIC Dist. Centre and 6 Ors. - Respondents
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 2339 OF 2017.
Decided On : 21-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land acquisition and sale history. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 2. compensation assessment and district magistrate's involvement. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 3. arguments on the validity and calculation of land claims. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. opposition’s arguments against applicants’ claims. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. court's observations on compensation and land status. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. legal standards for contempt in civil cases. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. conclusion on contempt charges and compensation. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. final dismissal of contempt application. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
[Civil Misc. Application No. 08 of 2019]
Heard.
2. As the contempt application itself has been decided, the application for framing of charges and for determination of compensation has become infructuous.
3. Dismissed as infructuous.
[Civil Misc. Application No. 13 of 2020]
4. Heard.
5. This application has been filed for directing the opposite party to deposit the compensation amount within two weeks.
6. As the contempt application itself has been decided, present application has become infructuous.
7. Dismissed as infructuous.
[Civil Misc. Deletion Application No. 16 of 2021]
8. Heard.
9. It is contended that the applicant no. 1 Manorama Kuchhal had died and her name be deleted from the array of parties as the name of her sole legal heir Sunil Kuchhal is already on record.
10. Application is allowed.
11. In view of the said fact, the name of applicant no. 1 Manorama Kuchhal stands deleted from the array of parties.
[Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 20 of 2023]
12. Heard.
13. This application has become infructuous.
14. Dismissed as infructuous.
[Civil Misc. Application No. 25 of 2023]
15. Heard.
16. Application stands disposed off in terms of the judgment.
[Order on Contempt Application]
17. Heard Sri Ram Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sanjiv Sen, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Love Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Sri Deepesh Raj, Advocate and Sri Tanmay Sadh alongwith Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, Advocate for NOIDA and Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
18. This contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed for punishing the opposite party for not complying the order of writ Court dated 19.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 24775 of 1990, having been confirmed by the Apex Court.
19. The facts, in nutshell, are that the original applicant late Manorma Kuchhal had purchased plot of land in Khasra No. 136 measuring 2915 square meter, Khasra No. 137 measuring 6571 square meter and in Khasra No. 138 measuring 2186 square meter of land total area 11672 square meter through different sale deeds in the year 1985-86 respectively.
20. Late Manorma Kuchhal sold 1265 square meter of land on 12.06.1989 in Khasra No. 138 to one Bina Singh, Vijay Singh and Ishan Singh. Names of the purchaser were mutated in the revenue records on 24.09.2019 in Case No. 548/24.09.1990. Similarly, J.B. Kuchhal sold an area of 1771 square meter from Khasra No. 137 to one Smt. Renu Kaur and Smt. Baljit Kaur whose names were mutated in revenue records on 05.07.1990. The total area sold in Khasra No. 137M and 138M was 3036 square meter and total area left with the applicants in Khasra No. 136M, 137M and 138M was 8636 square meter.
21. The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) on 30.11.1989 issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land belonging to the applicants in Village Bhagel Begampur, Pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad. The notification under Section 6/17 was published on 16.06.1990. J.B. Kuchhal husband of the applicant no. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 24775 of 1990 before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings. The said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.12.1997. The possession was taken over by the C
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of notification under Section 4(1) and the determination of land v....
The appellant committed contempt by willfully disobeying a court order directing the deposit of compensation, emphasizing the imperative for compliance with judicial directives.
Civil contempt requires willful disobedience, which was not established as the counsel's statement did not constitute an undertaking.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
Disputes regarding compensation apportionment for land acquisition must be resolved by the Principal Civil Court, not through writ jurisdiction, when an alternative remedy exists.
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
