LAXMI NARAYAN Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a well recognised principle that a matter of contempt is between the court and the contemnor. In the instant case an appeal (being LPA.No.120/2001) preferred by the present applicant was disposed of in view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties in the following manner:

(2.) According to the learned counsel, there were directions, namely, to the applicant to approach within a period of one month and to the respondent to consider the application and to give similar treatment in case DDA had offered such employment against class-IV to any person in lieu of land acquisition. There was a further direction that consideration would be subject to availability of the vacancy and the third direction was that an appropriate order shall be passed within one month from the receipt of the appellant's application or representation. We note that, in fact, these were not directions but were statements made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties which have been recorded by the court and, in view of these statements, the appeal was disposed of.

(3.) It is thereafter that the applicant approached the court by filing a contempt application stating that the application was not disposed of within a reasonable period or within a period of one month. It was alleged that the petitioner has been denied employment and the consent terms were not complied with by the respondent. The learned Judge who heard the petitioner's contempt petition observed that "there is no doubt about the fact that there has been inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in considering the request by the petitioner." It is further observed "However, in so far as the merit of the contempt petition is concerned, a communication has been subsequently addressed to the petitioner dated 21.01.2002 rejecting the case of the petitioner." The learned Judge subsequently observed that in the said letter it has been stated that the DDA has not offered any employment to the children of the family members whose lands were acquired after the policy resolution of 1978 was formulated and there are no similar cases. There is no vacancy in which the petitioner can be accommodated.