Dismissed

Smt. Rashmi v. Siddhartha Kumar Singh Exe. Engineer Irrigation

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2019CAPL/3843/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for contempt by Smt. Rashmi against the State Government for non-payment of land compensation, the Court directed the release of a specific deposited sum to the petitioner and referred the calculation of the total payable amount, including interest and costs, to the District Judge who passed the original award.

What did the court decide?

Released Rs. 4,49,730/- deposited by State to petitioner; balance amount to be computed by District Judge within four weeks.

Smt. Rashmi Vs Siddhartha Kumar Singh Exe. Engineer… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3843 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rashmi Opposite Party :- Siddhartha Kumar Singh Exe. Engineer Irrigation

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava,Anand Prakash Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- K.R. Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

Under order of the writ court dated 07.08.2015 (Writ Petition No. 75490 of 2011), the respondents were required to restore possession of the land of the petitioner to her or in the alternative pay compensation to her including additional compensation, solatium and interest as would be determined by District Judge, Jaunpur, within four months. The District Judge, Jaunpur determined the compensation by award dated 06.09.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the State Government filed an appeal but which came to be dismissed imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/-. Since, the compensation amount in terms of the award of the District Judge and the direction of the writ court was not paid, therefore, the instant contempt application was filed.

¶9

An affidavit of compliance has been filed by A.K. Kushwaha, Executive Engineer Irrigation Division, Jaunpur (opposite party no.2). In the affidavit, the stand taken is that in terms of the award, a sum of Rs. 4,49,730/- became payable to the petitioner. A draft for the said amount was prepared on 31.03.2018. The petitioner was informed about the same and request was made to her to receive the amount and execute sale deed in favour of the State Government. However, the petitioner did not turn up to receive the amount. Subsequently, after dismissal of first appeal, cost of Rs. 50,000/- was added and petitioner was informed by letter dated 12.12.2018 that the total amount due was Rs. 6,45,405/- and the petitioner may approach the office of the Collector to collect the amount and execute the sale deed. The petitioner again did not contact the office of the Collector. It is also stated that since the petitioner did not receive the amount and therefore, for remaining amount of Rs. 1,95,675/- fresh sanction of budget is to be obtained from the State Government.

¶10

The petitioner has filed an affidavit along with which a chart

¶11

has been annexed, in which, it is admitted by the petitioner that she has received Rs. 1,45,800/- during pendency of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the remaining amount payable to her is Rs. 9,93,893/-.

¶12

This Court on 08.05.2019 directed the State Government to deposit Rs. 4,49,730/- in the registry. In compliance of the said order, the amount has been deposited. Indisputably, the said amount is payable to the petitioner towards part payment of the amount due under the award.

¶13

As regards dispute between the parties relating to the actual amount payable under the award of District Judge, this Court is of the opinion that the same should be decided by the Court passing the award.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant contempt applicant is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶15

(a) Amount of Rs. 4,49,730/- which has been deposited by the State Government with the Registrar General of this Court shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶16

(b) The petitioner shall file her calculation before the District Judge along with supporting evidence and certified copy of this order.

¶17

(c) The State Government shall also file its calculation along with supporting evidence before the District Judge within next two weeks.

¶18

(d) The District Judge shall thereafter proceed to calculate the actual amount payable under the award passed by him, keeping in mind the judgment of the writ court dated 07.08.2015 and also by adding cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the State Government by this Court while dismissing the appeal.

¶19

Upon determination of the amount by the District Judge, the balance amount, if any, shall be paid to her by the State Government within next four weeks.

¶20

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 10.7.2019 Shashank

Smt. Rashmi v. Siddhartha Kumar Singh Exe. Engineer Irrigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rashmi v. Siddhartha Kumar Singh Exe. Engineer Irrigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Singh and Another Vs District Judge and 7 Others

M/S Mohata Concerns Ltd. Vs Director Director General of Employment and Training and 6 Others

Gyanmati Vs Chandra Pati and 4 Others

Mohd. Shafeeq Vs Civil Judge J.D. Thakurdwara and 2 Others

Shyam Sunder Kushwaha and Another Vs Ram Chhabiley and 2 Others

Ram Dhani Vs Shri Ashok Kumar Tehsildar Tehsil Kaptanganj/Hata