Judgment:
COCP No.222 of 2013 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
COCP No.222 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 10, 2013 Gopal Singh …..Petitioner versus Shri Manasvi Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur.
…..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI.
-.- Present:- Mr.Manish Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
-.- M.M.S.BEDI, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner has filed this contempt petition claiming that the order dated November 7, 2012 passed by this Court in CWP No.22163 of 2012 directing the respondents to examine the representation of the petitioner within one month and take appropriate action for initiation of proceedings against respondent No.5 to ensure that the amount of compensation is disbursed to the petitioner, has not been complied with.
Gupta Sanjay 2013.07.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh COCP No.222 of 2013 [2].In the reply filed, it has been informed that the order stands complied with.
It has been disclosed that as per the report of SDM, the petitioner’s father Rattan Chand originally owned 6 marlas out of 13 marlas in KhaSr.No.220/1-2-4-5-8-9-10.
He sold 4.5 marlas vide four sale deeds betwen1961 to 2009 as such the ownership of the petitioner was only to the extent of 1.5 marlas of land regarding which the compensation has already been calculated as Rs.82,500/-.
The amount is not accepted by the petitioner as he demands that compensation for 4 marlas 5 sarsahi should be paid.
Counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that his client has informed him that no sale deed had been executed by his father Rattan Chand.
Photocopies of four sale deeds existing on the record of the Sub Registrar have been handed over to counsel for the petitioner.
In view of above circumstances, there does not appear to be any willful disobedience on the part of the respondent.
It will be open to the petitioner to claim the additional compensation in case he establishes in accordance with law that though his entitlement for compensation was for acquired 6 marlas and he has been granted compensation for 1.5 marlas.
It will be open to the petitioner to file application for the release of the compensation already calculated at the rate of Rs.55000/- per marla for 1.5 marlas total amounting to Rs.82500/-.
Disposed of without prejudice to the abovesaid legal rights of the petitioner.
Gupta Sanjay 2013.07.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh COCP No.222 of 2013 [3].It is not out of place to observe here that the counsel still insists that the disputed question of fact regarding sale by father of the petitioner has to be looked into as false claim has been raised.
In the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the said controveRs.has not been gone into.
This order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek enhancement of the compensation.
July 10, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Gupta Sanjay 2013.07.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh