Dismissed

Chakar Vani (Deceased) through His Lr v. Shekhar Dutt and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 May 2017COCP/175/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-implementation of a Court order regarding land acquisition compensation. Respondents undertook to release the amount within six weeks, leading the Court to dismiss the petition as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of contempt petition as not pressed; respondents bound by undertaking to release payment within six weeks.

Chakar Vani (Deceased) through His Lr Vs Shekhar Dutt and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Manoj Kumar 2017.05.11 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and COCP No.175 of 2017 #1# integrity of this document

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

COCP No.175 of 2017 Date of Order: 11.5.2017

¶4

Chakar Vani through his LR

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shekhar Dutt and Ors.

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Naresh Chander, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Vikas Thakur, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶13

By instituting the instant contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner-son (LR) of one of the Ex-land owners, whose land falling in Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was sought to be acquired by the State Government, has alleged disobedience of order dated 19.7.2006 (P.1) passed by this Court observing as under:

¶14

“In view of the above, impugned award regarding redetermination of the compensation payable to the owners/their successor-in-interest is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar to consider the matter afresh by keeping in view the judgment of the High Court in RFA No.973 of 1988. It is clarified that during the pendency of application under Section 28-A(1), amount if any, disbursed to respondent No.2 earlier will not be recovered.”

¶15

COCP No.175 of 2017 #2#

¶16

It is alleged that despite the representation dated 28.10.2010 (P.6) being submitted by the petitioner for considering his matter afresh in compliance of directions aforesaid, no amount qua compensation has been released.

¶17

Upon notice, reply by way of affidavit dated 09.5.2017 of Ramandeep Singh, Defence Estates Officer, Pathankot Circle Pathankot has been filed stating that in compliance of the directions of this Court, approval for release of payment qua payable amount as per award dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Collector including solatium and interest on enhancement of compensation has been accorded by the competent Authority vide letter dated 21.4.2017 (R.1) issued by the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Western Command, Chandigarh.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes that the entire amount due to the petitioner shall be released within a period of six weeks from today.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid statement made at bar by learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition any further.

¶20

Dismissed as not pressed. Rule is discharged. Respondents shall be bound by their aforesaid stand.

¶21

May 11, 2017 (JASWANT SINGH) manoj JUDGE

¶22

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

Chakar Vani (Deceased) through His Lr v. Shekhar Dutt and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakar Vani (Deceased) through His Lr v. Shekhar Dutt and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijender and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naveen Vs State of Haryana

Baljit Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Gurcharan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Neelam Rathi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs State of Punjab