Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1579 (JK)

ANGRAIZ SINGHAND OTHERS v. ANURADHA GUPTA DISTRICT COLLECTOR SAMBA AND ANOTHER

CCP(D)/8/2023 · 2025-02-05

Atul Sreedharan, Rajesh Sekhri

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CCP (D) No. 8/2023 Page 1 of 3 Sr. No. 4 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP (D) No. 8/2023 Angraiz Singhand & Ors. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. M. A. Bhat, Adv. Vs. Anuradha Gupta District Collector Samba & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE (Through VC) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE O R D E R 05.02.2025 1. The present contempt petition has been filed for enforcement of the order dated 2nd September 2021 passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench in WP (C) No. 1803/2021 wherein the petitioners in that case were land owners of land situated in village Katli of District Samba whose lands were acquired by the respondents in this contempt petition for defence purposes. The final award for payment of the compensation was passed by the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition on 27th September 2017 and the whole of the compensation amount was deposited by the indenting department which was the Defence Ministry, in the year 2016. 2. It was the case of the petitioners before the writ court that no compensation was received by them for which the petitioners had already approached the authorities concerned by filing representations which was Annexure-III to the writ petition. 3. The learned Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition by observing that it would be appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondent No. 3 who was the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba to consider and decide the representation with Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.02.2025 CCP (D) No. 8/2023 Page 2 of 3 regard to the specific averments made in the writ petition within a period of four weeks. 4. Learned counsel for the contemnors informed the court that the compensation amount was deposited by the contemnors before the Registry of this Court. The same is not disputed. The contempt petitioners moved an application for the release of the said amount in their favour which is CM No. 6637/2024. The relevant paragraphs in the said application are paras 10 to 12 where the contempt petitioners 1 to 87 sought the release of compensation for land comprising Khasra No. 702 of village Katli measuring 104 kanals for which the compensation was assessed at Rs. 3,65,80,956/- by the contemnors. It is also averred by the contempt petitioners that there is no litigation pending in respect of the aforementioned land in any court of law and, therefore, there was no legal impediment to release the said amount in favour of the petitioners 1 to 87. 5. In paragraph No. 11, the contempt petitioners have stated that applicants 88 to 96 were entitled to receive compensation in respect of land measuring 31 Kanals, 12 marlas of Khasra No. 724, 31 Kanals 8 marlas of Khasra No. 754, 4 Kanals 9 marlas of Khasra No. 755 and 3 Kanals 19 marlas of Khasra No. 757 of village Katli, Tehsil and District Samba total measuring 71 Kanals and 8 marlas and that there was no pending litigation in any court of law with regard to the said acquired lands. It was specifically averred that the lands mentioned in paragraph No. 11 is without any dispute and was not covered under mutation No. 1211 and that the same should be released in favour of the contempt petitioners. In paragraph No. 12, the contempt petitioners have specifically stated that the lands comprising Khasra No. 1467/608 measuring 128 Kanals of village Katli was under a stay on the payment of compensation to the 44 petitioners and besides that the rest of the acquired land was unencumbered. 6. Learned Sr. AAG in opposing the said prayer for the release of the amounts has referred to a compliance report dated 25.07.2024 in which it is mentioned that there was an appeal filed by certain other persons before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba seeking a stay on the lands mentioned in paragraph No. 10 and 11 of the aforesaid application. The said compliance report does not constitute a Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.02.2025 CCP (D) No. 8/2023 Page 3 of 3 part of the digital file of this contempt petition as there is an Office report dated 30.07.2024 which mentions that the said compliance report is defective as the affidavit of the contemnor is not attested and verified. 7. This Court finds the attitude on the part of the Advocate General Office as lax in not correcting the error for nearly 5 to 6 months after the same was filed before this Court. This Court asks the learned Advocate General to draw the attention of this Court to the reply given to the aforementioned CM filed by the contempt petitioners with specific reference to paragraphs 10 to 12 therein and the reply given by the State. The said reply has been examined by the Court which was filed on 14.12.2024 is grossly perfunctory and does not even refer to the averments made in paragraph Nos. 10 to 12 which is an implicit admission of the correctness of the averments made in paragraph Nos. 10 to 12 of the said application moved by the contempt petitioners. Therefore, this Court directs the Registry to release the compensation amount deposited by the contemnors withholding only that part of the compensation which has relevance/reference to Khasra No. 1467/608 relating to 128 Kanals of land which as per the disclosure made by the contempt petitioners themselves has been stayed by an order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba. 8. The compensation relating to Khasra No. 1467/608 can be released to the rightful claimants by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba after ascertaining and resolving the dispute at his level. 9. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba is requested to expeditiously deal with the appeal of the contempt petitioners herein with regard to Khasra No. 1467/608 preferably within a period of four months from the date of this order. 10. With the above direction, nothing further survives in this contempt petition and the same is disposed of. (RAJESH SEKHRI) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 05.02.2025 Altaf Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.02.2025