SUDHAKAR MAHADEORAO KAWALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN answer to notice to Show Cause in this Contempt Petition, the Land Acquisition Officer/contemner has sought to justify his action of not complying with our orders regarding the payment of enhanced compensation to the petitioner on the ground that since the Petitioner had chosen to apply for a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ('act') and since the reference was actually made in his Land Acquisition case in the Civil Court, which awarded him enhanced compensation, he was not entitled to enhanced compensation under S. 28a of the said Act on the basis of the enhanced compensation awarded in some other reference in similar cases decided on 17-4-1990. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the State upon the right to enhanced compensation granted under S. 28-A of the Act and has urged that even though a reference is made to the Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner in his Land Acquisition Case and even though some enhanced compensation is granted to him thereunder, he is still entitled to claim higher compensation as awarded in similar case by the reference Court in view of the provisions of S. 28a of the Act.

(2.) BE that as it may, it is not necessary for us to go into the question of interpretation of Section 28-A of the Act because the above contention that a reference was made at the instance of the petitioner in his Land Acquisition Case under Section 18 of the Act and that compensation payable to him was enhanced therein by the Civil Court, was not urged in the original Writ Petition No. 917 of 1992 decided on 29-4-1992, in which the petitioner had urged before us that, we should direct the respondents in the said petition to pay the enhanced compensation awarded in similar case decided by the Civil Court on 17-4-1990 relying upon the letter of the Collector dated 21-11-91 by which he had directed that in accordance with the provisions of Section 28a of the Act, the claimants concerned should be given enhanced compensation upto 31-1-1992. Since the direction in the said Writ Petition No. 917 of 1992 decided on 29-4-1992 was not complied with by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner preferred Contempt Petition No. 173/1992. The respondents in the said Writ Petition No. 917 /92 had sought review of the order dated 29-4-1992 passed therein. Neither in the said Contempt Petition, nor in the Review Application, the above contention that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, because reference was already made at his instance in his Land Acquisition case to the Civil Court which had awarded him some enhanced compensation therein was raised by the respondents concerned.

(3.) THE Contempt Peitition of the petitioner registered as Contempt Petition No. 173 of 1992 and the Review Application of the respondents i. e. M. C. A. Stamp No. 15686 of 1992 in Writ Petition No. 917 of 1992 were decided against the respondents concerned by the order dated 14-10-1992. In fact, by our aforesaid order dated 14-10-1992, the Contemner was strictly warned that he has to comply with our order. However, although there was non-compliance of our order, he was given one more chance to rectify his mistake and to comply with our order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 917 of 1992. He has still persisted in not complying with the aforesaid order by raising the above contention for the first time in this Contempt Petition.