The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for willful disobedience of the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.42970 of 2019 (Rahat Ali And Others Vs. Union of India and Others). The aforesaid order is reproduced below:-
"Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Union of India, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-2 and 3 and Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-4.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:
"A. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents specially respondent no.2 to provide the compensation award to the petitioners having gata no.2301 area0.058 hectare situated at Village Narkatha, Tappa Chawanr, Pargana Bansi East Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar.
B. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents decide the application dated 22.11.19 of the petitioner within short span of time stipulated period which is still pending before respondent no.2 an d 3.
C. Award cost of the petitioners against the contesting respondent."
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are recorded tenure holders of gata no.2301(area 0.058 hectare) situate in village Narkatha, Tappa Chawanr, pargana Bansi East tehsil Bansi, district Siddharthnagar(hereinafter referred to as "the plot in question"). It is also contended that the remaining land of gata no.2301 beyond the area of 0.058 hectare was also acquired and utilized by the respondents upon which the petitioners demanded payment of compensation with regard to remaining area of plot in question and made a representation before respondents-2 and 3 on 12.1.2019(copy is on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition) but it has not been decided. It is lastly contended that the suitable direction be issued to respondents-2 and 3 to decide the petitioners' representation pending before them within a specific period.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-2 to 4 submits that the petitioners have not brought on record any documents pursuant to the cause showing that the entire area of the plot in question was acquired and in case this plot is acquired, this Court may issue a direction to respondents-2 and 3 to decide the petitioners' representation to ascertain whether the contention made by the petitioners is correct. In view of the above, it appears that there is no representation. It is further submitted that the respondents-2 and 3 who alone are competent to consider the petitioners' claim.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions to respondent-3:
1. The petitioners shall file a representation before respondent-3 raising all the grounds taken in the writ petition appending thereto all the documents proposed to be relied upon by them in respect of their claim along with certified copy of this order.
2. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners before respondent-3 within a period of two weeks from today he shall consider and decide the same after ascertaining the total area of the plot in question, which was acquired or utilized by the respondents for widening of NH-233. In case respondent-3 comes to the conclusion that the the entire area of the petitioners' plot in question was acquired while the compensation in respect of an area of 0.058 hectare was only paid, in that case respondent-3 shall determine the compensation for the remaining area of the plot in question, which has been acquired and utilized by the respondents for the purpose of construction of NH-233 but with regard to which no compensation has been paid, the compensation shall be determined and paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of determination of.
With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of. "
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that though the order of the Writ Court was duly served upon the opposite parties, till date no decision has been taken in the matter.
It appears from perusal of the record that though the direction was given to the applicant/petitioner in the writ petition to file representation before respondent No.3 of the writ petition namely Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tehsil Bansi District Siddharth Nagar but the applicant/petitioner submitted the before respondent No.2, i.e., District Magistrate Siddharth Nagar and no such representation has been made before respondent No.3.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
In the facts and circumstances of the case,the present contempt application is disposed of permitting the applicant to file a fresh representation along with a copy of order as well as copy of the order of the Writ Court and other relevant papers and documents before respondent No.3, i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation would be filed within stipulated period, the respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the order of Writ Court.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021/saqlain