ANITA AGRAWAL Vs. N.K. XAXA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this contempt petition stating therein that there is deliberate and willful disobedience on the part of respondents in not complying of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dtd. 30/10/2018.

(2.) Mr. M. Pranjpe, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner had filed writ petition challenging the notification dtd. 4/12/2014 issued by the State Government under Sec. 30(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2013"), sought relief of quashment of notification dtd. 4/12/2014 and further to issue appropriate writ directing the respondent-authorities to recompute the compensation payable to petitioner after prescribing the appropriate factor. Hon'ble Court allowed the writ petition, struck down notification dtd. 4/12/2014 contained in Annexure P-1 therein, issued direction to the State Government to issue a fresh notification indicating the multiplier factor and to revise and revisit the amount of compensation. Respondents have not revisited and recomputed the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner vide award dtd. 3/1/2017. Petitioner after passing of the judgment dtd. 30/10/2018 made representation on 29/11/2018 followed by the legal notice dtd. 9/3/2019 requesting to ensure strict compliance of the order/ direction issued by the High Court. Respondent 3 in utter disregard to the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in writ petition on 30/10/2018, had issued memo dtd. 19/7/2019 stating that the land owned by petitioner and acquired in the land acquisition proceedings for Arpa Bhaisajhar Irrigation Project is land situated in urban area and the State Government's new notification dtd. 2/5/2019 is for application of multiplier for the lands acquired situated in rural areas. It further mentions that application is not maintainable. Respondent 3, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, was duty bound to revisit and recompute the compensation awarded in favour of petitioner. It is contended that against the judgment dtd. 30/10/2018, State Government filed review petitions which were disposed of on 12/12/2019 and the purport of the order in review petitions would show that the review petitions are allowed only in part and benefit of the order extended to all such other persons whose land was acquired applying the multiplier of 1.00 was deleted. In the writ petition of the petitioner, notification dtd. 4/12/2014 providing application of multiplier of 1.00 has been struck down. By reading entire discussions in the order would give only one conclusion that the petitioner is entitle for application of multiplier of 2.00 as mentioned under the First Schedule of the Act of 2013. In the contempt petition also, the Court has to consider not only the compliance of the order but also the spirit in which the order is passed. It is also contended that in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013, provides for multiplier factor of 2.00 for the lands situated in rural areas. In award it is clearly mentioned that the land of petitioner is situated in rural area. The Act of 2013 is a Central Act and therefore, the State Government is not having any jurisdiction to issue any notification under Sec. 30(2) of the Act of 2013. Therefore, once the notification dtd. 4/12/2014 is quashed by this Court, the Respondents are required to revisit and recompute the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 2.00. In support of his contention, counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of E.T. Sunup vs. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association and another reported in (2004) 8 SCC 683; Lakshman Prasad Agarwal vs. Syed Mohd. Karim and another reported in (2020) 17 SCC 826; and Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273.

(3.) He submitted that Sec. 26, 27 and 28 of Act of 2013 deals with the procedure of determining the amount of compensation. Respondents have not complied with the specific direction to revise and revisit the award passed and recompute the amount of compensation in terms of order dtd. 30/10/2018.