Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK CONTC No.1808 of 2010 An application U/s. 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act arising out of OJ.No.4964 of 1996 disposed of on 15.7.2008. Grantha Pasayat ….. Petitioner -VersusRajendra Prasad Gupta, Chief General Manager, MCL. …. Opp.Party. For the petitioner … M/s. Dayananda Mohapatra, M. Mohapatra, G. Mohapatra, S.P. Nath & L. Nanda. For the opp.party … Mr. Naresh Chandra Sahoo. PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE B. R. SARANGI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of hearing : 12.08.2014 Date of Judgment : 19.08.2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------AMITAVA ROY, C.J.The petitioner alleges herein deliberate non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 passed in O.J.C. No.4964 of 1996 (since modified by orders dated 29.1.2010 and 29.6.2010 in Misc. Case Nos. 534 of 2009 and 238 of 2010 respectively).
2. We have heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party. -2- 3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the present adjudication are that the father of the petitioner as a lessee of an area of land measuring Ac.2.00 appertaining to Hal Plot No.73/989 of Mouza Bandhabahal was in possession thereof. In the year 1983, without acquiring the land in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), the possession thereof was taken over for the purpose of expansion of the Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (for short, hereinafter referred as ‘the MCL’). Though the petitioner’s father was having the right, title & interest over the said land, neither any compensation was paid No.any benefit under the Land Acquisition Scheme was extended to him. Situated thus, O.J.C. No.4964 of 1996 was instituted by the petitioner. The proceeding was contested by the opposite parties including MCL. The fact that the possession of the land taken over was No.disputed. It was contended on behalf of the MCL that benefits under the Land Acquisition Scheme had meanwhile been extended to the petitioner though no acquisition proceedings under the Act was initiated for the purpose.
4. A coordinate Bench of this Court, after careful scrutiny of the materials on records, held that the title of the petitioner’s father/petitioner over the land was undisputed. It was observed that the opposite party, in law, had no authority to take over the possession of the said land in the manner done. Noticing that the possession of the land had been taken over in the year 1983, their Lordships directed the MCL to pay compensation to the petitioner at the rate fixed by this Court in respect of the other land in the vicinity, which was subject matter in OJ.-3- No.2904 of 1994, within three months from the date of communication of the order. It was mentioned that the amount of compensation would also carry interest at the statutory rate from the date of taking over possession of the land. The submission made on behalf of the MCL that the benefits under the Land Acquisition Scheme had already been extended to the petitioner was No.accepted by their Lordships. The MCL was further directed that if the petitioner filed an application praying for the benefits under the Scheme, the same would be extended to him strictly in consonance with that Scheme.
5. The petitioner has returned to this Court alleging, in substance, that though in terms of the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 (as modified) he had submitted his representation for compliance thereof, the MCL has deliberately omitted to do so.
6. The opposite party in his reply has averred that on receipt of the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 (as modified subsequently), the land records were verified, which disclosed that the land in question had been recorded in the name of Bajanath Pasayat, father of the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 1,02,578.00 by way of compensation was sanctioned and paid to him vide SBI Cheque No.237931 dated 8.4.2011, which was received by the father of the petitioner. Vis-à-vis the application dated 16.04.2011 submitted by the father of the petitioner seeking relief under the Land Acquisition Scheme, the opposite party has pleaded that under the Rehabilitation Scheme dated 02.01.1989 of the Government of Orissa in the Revenue and Excise Department, petitioner’s family is No.eligible for any settlement of plot as the family had No.lost -4- any homestead land and possession of his agricultural holding had only been taken over. The opposite party has, however, averred that the petitioner’s family is coming under Category-C of the land oustee under the Rehabilitation Scheme and for that reason employment to Shri Jathartha Pasayat, son of Bajanath Pasayat was provided in the year 1988 in terms of package deal vide offer of appointment letter No.SECL/GM/OBV/PER/ 13.B/29087 dated 08/09-09-1988 against the solemn declaration and agreement by Shri Bajanath Pasayat against an area of Ac.2.00 of Babdhabahal Mouza and, therefore, prayer for further rehabilitation/employment was No.tenable. The opposite party however stated that the case of the petitioner would be placed before the ensuing District Rehabilitation Sub-Committee headed by the Collector, Jharsuguda for disposal.
7. In his rejoinder, the petitioner asserted that his family had lost its entire immovable property including homestead land consequent upon said acquisition thereof, and therefore, the ground stated for denying the benefits under the land acquisition scheme is wholly frivolous. According to the petitioner, the amount of Rs.1,02,578.00 paid by way of compensation is too megre, as the present valuation of the said land would be more than five crore rupees.
8. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008, argued that the MCL No.having complied with the order in letter and spirit, there has been a willful disobedience thereof amounting to contempt of this Court for which the opposite party-contemNo.ought to be penalized. -5- Reiterating the pleaded stand of the petitioner, Mr. Mohapatra has mentioned that No.only the compensation released to him is wholly insignificant no benefit whatsoever has been granted under the Land Acquisition Scheme.
9. Mr. N.C.Sahoo, learned counsel for the opp.party, in reply has submitted that the compensation paid had been on verification of the relevant records. Further as, inter alia, petitioner’s brother has already been provided with employment under the MCL based on a declaration and agreement made by/entered into by their father against the acquisition of his land, his further claim for rehabilitation appointment is wholly misconceived.
10. We have considered the rival pleadings and also the arguments on the basis thereof. A plain reading of the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 discloses that thereby the MCL had been directed to pay compensation to the petitioner at the rate fixed by the Court in respect of land in the vicinity as per the decision reported in OJ.No.2904 of 1994. It is No.the case of the petitioner that the amount of Rs.1,02,578.00 has No.been computed as per this decision. Their Lordships vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 had directed the MCL to grant the benefit under the Land Acquisition Scheme strictly in consonance therewith. The assertion of the opposite party in his counter vis-à-vis the rehabilitation employment and allotment of resettlement plot is based on interpretation of the Land Acquisition Scheme and per se does No.demonstrate a conscious and willful orientation to defy the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 to this effect. -6- 11. Having regard to the limited scope of adjudication in a contempt proceedings, we are thus of the view, in the singular facts and circumstances of the case, that no case for contempt of court has been made out. It is thus closed. This notwithstanding, it would be open for the petitioner, if so advised, to seek his remedy qua the stand taken by the opposite party as otherwise available to him in law. The petition stands closed. ..…………………… CHIEF JUSTICE Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.I agree. ……………………… JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19 th day of August, 2014/A. Dash