Dismissed

Smt Anna Minz v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Jharkhand HC11 Nov 2016Cont.(Cvl)/489/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order dismissed a contempt petition. The court found that the alleged representation regarding land measurement and compensation had been decided, and the respondents' counter-affidavit showed payment was made in the petitioner's presence. The court noted further disputes could be raised in the lowest available civil court.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; petitioner directed to file suit under Section 15 CPC for further disputes.

Smt Anna Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its… — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cont. Case(C) No. 489 of 2015

¶3

Smt. Anna Minz wife of late Boniface Minz, resident of Village- Sisai Road, Nadioli, Gumla, PO & PS- Gumla, District- Gumla

¶4

……..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sri Sarwan Sai, Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, PO, PS & District- Gumla

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

……….Opp. Parties

¶9

--------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Advocate For the State : J.C. to SC (L & C)

¶11

07/Dated: 11th November, 2016, Oral order: Per D. N. Patel, J.:

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the order, passed by this Court 15^th April, 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 1420 of 2015, it appears that the direction given by this Court was to decide the representation of this petitioner, which has already been decided and measurement of the land was carried out by the respondents-State authorities, in presence of this petitioners. These facts have been mentioned in paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit, filed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2. Paragraph nos. 7 and 20 of the said counter affidavit read as under:

¶13

“7. That with regard to the statement made in Para-3 of the contempt petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the land in question i.e. Mauza- Gumla, Khata No.11, Plot Nos. 1040 and 1041, was again measured by the Opposite party No.5, in presence of the petitioner and upon fresh measurement, it was found that 4(four) decimal of land under Khata No.11, Plot No.1040 and 1041 has been merged with pind of the Chhat Talab (Bhathi Talab) maintained and acquired by the Fishery Department, Gumla. It is submitted that the Chhat Talab has been settled to the Fishery Department, Gumla in the year, 1992.

¶14

xx xx xx xx

¶15

That is is humbly stated and submitted that the total amount of Rs:-5,96,196.00 was fixed as compensation out of which Rs:-4,23,831.00 has been paid to Smt. Anna Minz which has been duly received by her through Cheque bearing Cheque No.

¶16

22029 dated 10.02.2016 Smt. Anna Minz has received and accepted the 75% of the amount and has signed an affidavit in this regard on 10.02.2016. It is stated that the rest amount will be paid to the petitioner after the acquisition proceedings are being complete.”

¶17

In view of the aforesaid affidavit, it appears that after measurement of the land, in question, in presence of this petitioner, the legally payable amount has also been arrived at and out of the same, payment has been made at Rs. 4,23,831/-. Though the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit, but, she has failed to mention that she has never remained present when the measurement of the land, in question, was carried out. Thus, in presence of the petitioner, the measurement of the land, in question, has been carried out.

¶18

However, if there is any further dispute, the petitioner can agitate her claim before the lowest available court, as per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶19

Thus, in view of the counter affidavit, filed by the opposite parties, there is no willful disobedience by the respondents of the order, passed by this Court dated 15^th April, 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 1420 of 2015 and hence, this contempt petition is hereby dismissed.

¶20

(D.N. Patel, J.)

¶21

A.K.Verma/

Smt Anna Minz v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anna Minz v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

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

Binod Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Tribhuwan Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Kameshwar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Anunaya Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Anand Kishore Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.