SK MOHIDUR RAHAMAN Vs. AMIYA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt application arises out of an alleged-disobedience of this court's order dated 20th January, 1995 passed in Civil Order No. 18966 (W) of 1993 which has since been reported in 1996(1) C.H.N. 199. In the aforementioned decision, this court upon taking into consideration the various decisions of the Supreme Court, inter alia, hold that when a policy decision has been adopted by the State, the same should be given effect to. The petitioner has filed an application for initiation of contempt proceeding wherein a Rule has been issued.

(2.) In appears, upon hearing Mr. Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sirkar, learned counsel for the alleged contemners, that the local advisory committee whose term has been extended in terms of this court's order dated 29.8.95, has taken into consideration the case of the petitioner, but did not recommend his name for employment as certain discrepancies have been found in the name of his father. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon a document dated 31.10.91 being Memo No. 2832, whereby and whereunder a certificate was issued that the land of the petitioner has been acquired. The name of the father of the petitioner shall appear from the records of the Land Acquisition Proceedings and/or other revenue records in relation to the plot in question being J. L. No. 291 which has been acquired in L.A. Case No. 146/73-74. An Award bearing serial No. 192 had been passed therein and possession of the land has been taken on 21.5.79 and compensation has been paid on 18.3.80.

(3.) As the matter relates only to verification of the name of the father of the petitioner, in my opinion, interest of justice will be subserved if the Collector of Midnapore District verify the authenticity of the aforementioned records with reference to the identity of the petitioner vis-a-vis his fathers name and there cannot be any doubt that in the event, it is found that the land of the petitioner has actually been acquired, there cannot be any difficulty in granting an appointment to the petitioner in terms of the scheme.