PRAFULLA ADHAR SHINDE Vs. ARVIND R. KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been fled under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for taking action against the respondents for contempt of Court in Writ Petition No.10567 of 2018. It is also prayed that the respondents be punished for their willful breach of undertaking and obstruction in the process of administration of justice in the said writ petition.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the petition are that the land admeasuring 8200 square meters belonging to the petitioner has been used for construction of National Highway No.6, however, compensation is paid only in respect of acquisition of 1700 square meters land. In other words, the compensation for remaining land admeasuring 6500 square meters is not paid at all and, therefore, the petitioner had fled Writ Petition No.10567 of 2018 seeking compensation. Respondent No.1 has fled afidavit-in-reply in which he had given undertaking that amount of additional compensation would be paid to the petitioner. At the time of afidavit-in-reply, respondent No.1 was the Project Director of PIU, Dhule and the respondent No.2 is the successor of respondent No.1 to the said ofice. The petitioner says that it was the duty and responsibility of respondent No.1 to honour the undertaking which was given by him to this Court. Secondly after he had been succeeded by respondent No.2; it was the responsibility of respondent No.2 to honour the said undertaking. The land from Survey No.81/2 has been acquired on 15/12/2012 and compensation is paid to the extent of 1700 square meters only under the notice dtd. 16/12/2013. When it was noticed by the petitioner that the more land has been acquired, he had made representation on 14/3/2017 to the competent authority. The said representation was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records. Thereafter, the land Survey No.81 and its subdivisions were measured again on 15/6/2017 and at that time, it was revealed that total area of 8200 square meters has been utilized from Survey No.81/2. Communication has been received to that efect on 1/8/2017. Thereafter, CANH-6 had once again confrmed on 28/8/2017 about the said acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner. The said authority issued a Recovery Certifcate for recovery of additional amount wrongly paid to the brothers of the petitioner on 19/9/2017. Thereafter on 29/12/2017 the brothers of the petitioner applied to CANH-6 for removing the encumbrance and then it appears that the said authority has allowed the said application by the brothers of the petitioner. That order was passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It appears that the brothers of the petitioner have made grievance about the measurement dtd. 15/6/2017 to the Director of Land Records, Pune on 6/8/2018 and all these facts were placed before this Court in Writ Petition No.10567 of 2018. However, the afidavit was fled in which undertaking was given by respondent No.1 that the additional compensation would be paid to the petitioner, but now it is being refused. This amounts to breach of undertaking as well as Contempt of Court. Learned Advocate Mr. S. P. Shah appearing for the petitioner has taken us through all the documents and communication. He has pointed out the afidavit that was fled by respondent No.1 in the writ petition. He pointed out that in paragraph No.6, incorrect statements of facts have been made and the statements in paragraph No.8 are made to deviate the courts from deciding the writ petition. In paragraph No.8, it was clearly stated that as per letter dtd. 1/8/2017 issued by respondent No.3, the amount of compensation which was paid to the brothers of the petitioner for the land owned by him will be recovered and the same will be paid to the petitioner. This amounts to an undertaking and that afidavit was verifed on 12/12/2018. It has also been pointed out that when it was noticed that the measurement of Gut No.81 was not properly done, the concerned employee i.e. clerk of City Survey ofice has dealt with departmentally and the measurement sheet done in 2012 then cancelled. The order dtd. 8/10/2018 has also been pointed out wherein also the then clerk of the City Survey ofice Mr. A. D. Wagh was punished for preparing wrong map. Our attention is then drawn to the order passed by this Court on 13/3/2019 in Writ Petition No.10567 of 2018 wherein this Court had taken note of the afidavit-in-reply fled by respondent No.1. It was observed by this Court in the said order that the respondent No.1 in its afidavit-in- reply admitted that as per the revised joint measurement survey report, the area of the petitioner is increased and the area of the other land owners is equally decreased. When it was observed that the steps will have to be taken in respect of the award, the respondent No.3 is required to take steps and, therefore, learned AGP sought time to seek instructions. Thereafter, when the matter was on board on 7/8/2019, it appears that the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, of the petitioner, withdrew the writ petition in view of the afidavit fled by respondent No.1 and the statement was made that he would prosecute his right before the appropriate authority. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the said afidavit fled by respondent No.1, the petitioner changed the stand and when assured about receiving the additional compensation, had withdrawn the said writ petition. If the facts would have been otherwise, the petitioner would not have withdrawn the said petition. Now, it has been tried to be said that no such petition was made by the petitioner before the other authorities. Under such circumstance, the respondents have committed contempt of Court and breach of undertaking and, therefore, they are liable to be punished.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied on the decision in Ajay Kumar Pandey (Advocate) in RE : (1998) 7 SCC 248, wherein it has been observed thus :-