Dismissed

Guljeet Singh Kochar v. Mahesh Gupta Principal Secy. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2019CAPL/6767/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed a contempt application claiming non-compliance with a 2011 Writ Court order for land allotment and compensation. While partial compliance was admitted, the court found a prima facie case of contempt but granted one more opportunity to comply within three months before seeking further punishment.

What did the court decide?

Opposite parties granted three months to comply with the Writ Court order; liberty to move a fresh application for punishment if not complied with.

Guljeet Singh Kochar Vs Mahesh Gupta… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6767 of 2015 Applicant :- Guljeet Singh Kochar Opposite Party :- Mahesh Gupta Principal Secy. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kant Mishra,Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ramendra Pratap Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶5

By order dated 11.11.2011 passed in Writ C No.64026 of 2011 filed by the applicant, the Court directed as under:

¶6

"By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification No.3119/77-4-2003-84 N.2003 Lucknow dated 10.11.2003 issued under Section 4(1)/17 of Land Acquisition Act and impugned notification No.1732/77-4-2004-84 N-2003 Lucknow dated 10.06.2004 issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land comprising plot No.37M area 0.7400 Hect. of the petitioner of the Revenue Village Namauli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar and also for writ order direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to take any action not to make any construction on the land of the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that notifications in question have already been considered and bunch writ petitions being leading Writ Petition No.37443 of 2011 (Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others) have already been decided by the Full Bench judgment on 21st October, 2011. It is submitted that this writ petition is fully covered by the judgment of the Full Bench.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶9

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Full Bench judgment dated 21st October, 2011 in Gajraj's case. "

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶11

In the present matter, an affidavit of compliance was filed by Shri Deepak Agarwal, the then Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar on 1.2.2016 wherein it has been stated in para-6 that in response of the aforesaid order, 64.70% enhanced compensation has been

¶12

paid to the applicants. So far as 10% land in question is concerned, allotment letter has already been issued to the applicant on 27.11.2015.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant, on the basis of counter affidavit filed in response of the affidavit of compliance, states that so far as allotment letter dated 27.11.2017 is concerned, the same has not been complied with. Neither any demarcation activity has been carried out by the opposite parties nor actual physical possession of the land in question has been given to the applicant. The plot number has also not been accorded to the applicants.

¶14

Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court in letter and spirit within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶15

The applicants shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the selfaddressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.

¶16

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 RKP

Guljeet Singh Kochar v. Mahesh Gupta Principal Secy. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guljeet Singh Kochar v. Mahesh Gupta Principal Secy. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Bihari Verma Vs Visheshwar Prasad, Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam

Lala Ram Vs Shailendra Kumar, S.D.O. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another

Namdar and Another Vs Vivek Chaurdhary, Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Sundar Vs Sri Jitendra Kumar Secretary Secondary Edu. U.P. Lko.

Lalman Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others