SANTOSH Vs. KANHIYA LAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [for short 'the Act'] against the respondents. It is pleaded that respondent No. 1 (Kanhiya Lal) and the petitioner inherited the property situated in Village Devi Nagar, Tagra and Laha, Tehsil and District Panchkula, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The compensation was enhanced by the Civil Court vide award dated 25.5.2005 which was challenged by the State of Haryana by way of appeal bearing RFA No. 2356 of 2006 in which disbursement of enhanced compensation was stayed ex parte on 9.8.2005. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for vacation of ex parte order of stay which was allowed on 23.5.2006 and the order dated 9.8.2005 was modified with a rider that enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the claimants on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of Executing Court after giving notice to the State. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1 gave security of his land by furnishing security bond but the land was later on sold by him. Thus, he has willfully violated the undertaking. It is also submitted that the petitioner had filed petition for contempt before the learned Trial Court but it was withdrawn on 7.5.2013 with liberty to file fresh, in accordance with law, before this Court.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have found that vide order dated 23.5.2006, this Court had only modified the order dated 9.8.2005 ordering the payment of enhanced compensation to the claimants on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of Executing Court. Counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress upon the fact that respondent No. 1 thereafter had submitted security bond in terms of order dated 23.5.2006 but later on sold the land which was kept as security, therefore, he has committed a breach of undertaking and has made himself liable for contempt of Court.

(3.) BESIDES the fact that contempt petition is clearly barred by limitation, respondent No. 1 has not violated any order of the Court when he sold the land which was kept as security. At the most the Executing Court can pass an order of retrieving the amount, if any disbursed, on the basis of security bond but the contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner are not maintainable. Thus, finding no merit in the present contempt petition, the same is hereby dismissed.