Disposed

Vasdev Yadav v. Bhanu Chandra Goswami, D.M.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2020CAPL/2314/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application, the court found a prima facie case of civil contempt against respondents for disobeying a Writ order concerning land compensation. The judge granted two months for compliance and directed service of copies, allowing a fresh application if unmet.

What did the court decide?

Two months granted to opposite parties to comply with the order of the Writ Court; directions issued for service of copy.

Vasdev Yadav Vs Bhanu Chandra Goswami, D.M. — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2314 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vasdev Yadav Opposite Party :- Bhanu Chandra Goswami, D.M. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 19.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.15886 of 2019 (Vasdev Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents No.1, 2, 5 and 7 and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6.

¶8

Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 7.5.2019 passed the following order:-

¶9

"The grievance of the petitioner is that he is owner of Plot No. 174, area 0.320 hectare situated in Mauja Madanuwa Uparhar, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Prayagraj. In support of the said averment the petitioner has filed revenue record also. However, the respondents are raising construction over his land without any compensation.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that a citizen cannot be deprived of his rights without following the procedure prescribed under the law. It is stated that his constitutional right has been violated as no compensation has been paid to him and the respondents are raising construction over his land.

¶11

The matter needs consideration.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6. Learned Standing Counsel may seek instruction within two months.

¶13

Put up this case on 19th August, 2019"

¶14

The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have taken possession of the land of the petitioners without acquiring it and without paying any compensation.

¶15

The petitioners in this connection has represented to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj vide application dated 08.02.2019, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

¶16

The Government Order dated 12.05.2016 provides that where complaints are received with regard to such unauthorized possession of the land, the Committee headed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) would consider the matter and submit its report within two months to the District Magistrate, whereupon, he will take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶17

In view of the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, we direct the District Magistrate, Prayagraj- respondent no. 2 to place the above application of the petitioner for proper inquiry before the aforesaid District Level Committee and on receipt of the report from it

¶18

to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously. The above exercise would be completed by the respondent no. 2 within a period of four months from the date of production of authentic copy of this order.

¶19

In case, petitioners are found entitle to any compensation, the same shall be paid to them within a period of two months from the date of which the respondent No.2 takes decision on the petitioner's representation.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of."

¶21

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.

¶22

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 within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶23

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the selfaddressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.

¶24

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.

¶25

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶26

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

Order Date :- 6.8.2020 SP/

Vasdev Yadav v. Bhanu Chandra Goswami, D.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasdev Yadav v. Bhanu Chandra Goswami, D.M.

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

Shiv Poojan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M, Baba Gaya Das Technical Higher Secondary School Society and Another Vs Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits

Snehidheer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raghunath Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yatendra Singh Vs Radhey Shyam Yadav, General Manager, Jalkal Vibhag and Another

Vandana Kumari and Another Vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and 2 Others