Court No. - 50
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6025 of 2011 Applicant :- Amar Nath Ojha Opposite Party :- Chandan Lal Executive Engineer And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Kumar Ojha,.Amendra Asthana,R.Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,H.D.Verma
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
This contempt application has been filed alleging flouting of the order dated 09.07.2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 30949 of 2009 (Amar Nath Ojha alias Sajjan vs. The State of U.P. and others), by the opposite parties. The Writ Court passed the following order:-
"Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Pradhanmanti Gramin Sadak Yojana, part of Bhumidhari Plot Nos. 384 and 388 of the petitioner, are being taken without consent of the petitioner and without giving any kind of compensation to the petitioner. Learned standing counsel submits that earlier oral consent was given by the petitioner but subsequently objection has been raised by the petitioner. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.
In the meantime, unless the petitioner gives his consent in writing or respondents enter into any settlement with the petitioner, no construction on any part of the Bhumidhari plots of the petitioner shall be made."
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, despite the order of the Writ Court, the opposite parties have proceeded to make widening of the chak road on his land.
In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 1, in paragraph 19, it has been stated as follows:-
"That it is reiterated that no part of land of plot no. 384 and 388 belonging to the petitioner has been utilized in the present pucca road which is 3 meter wide on the spot and even if the road would have been made in 4 meter width then also no part of land of the petitioner was affected as is clear from the demarcation made on 12.09.2009 in presence of the petitioner. No other tenure holder, except the petitioner had objected to the construction of road."
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that on information being sought by him from the revenue authorities concerned, it was informed that the width of the chak road is three meters. Learned counsel referred to Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application in the regard. He also has also referred to the photographs of the chak road, appearing on page 77 of the affidavit, in an attempt to demonstrate that more area has been encroached upon by the opposite parties.
Learned counsel has referred to paragraph no. 19 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1, to demonstrate that only three meter wide Pacca Road has been made on the spot. He states that a perusal of the photographs reveal that more land than what is appearing in the demarcation report dated 12.09.2009 has been taken by the opposite parties.
The demarcation was made by the revenue authorities on 20.12.2009 in the presence of the applicant and other villagers. Copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 1. The markings were made and the road was found to be 20 Kadi (4 meters) wide. It was recorded that the tenure holders on both sides of the road were satisfied and agreed with their demarcation done and it was observed that they had given their consent for making the road widening to the extent mentioned therein.
The order of the Writ Court dated 09.07.2009 provided that unless the petitioner gives his consent in writing or respondents enter into any settlement with the petitioner, no construction on any part of the Bhumidhari land of the petitioner shall be made.
A perusal of the demarcation report aforesaid reveals that the applicant had acknowledged the demarcation done in his presence and in the presence of the other villagers and had agreed that for the purpose of chak road he had no objection. Therefore, even if a three meter wide chak road has been constructed, the consent of the applicant for four meter wide chak road remains.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that a ditch has been dug on along the side of the road, which encroaches upon the land of the applicant, would not be a 'construction', as appearing in the order of the Writ Court dated 09.07.2009. In the counter affidavit it has been categorically denied that any part of the land of the petitioner has been encroached upon.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the contempt application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Pkb/