← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/386/2016dismissed

Ku. Priti v. B. L. Gajpal

2016-09-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 386 of 2016

1. Ku. Priti D/o Shri Jayantilal, Aged About 37 Years R/o- Geeta Nagar, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Police Station - Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Civil & Revenue District- Raipur, (Chhattisgarh), Presented Trhough His Power Of Attorney Father Namely Jayanti Lal S/o Shri Durlabhji, Aged About 60 Years, R/oGeeta Nagar, Choubey Colony, Raipur Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District- Raipur, Civil & Revenue DistrictRaipur, (Chhattisgarh).

2. Kumari Manisha, D/o Shri Jayanti Lal, Aged About 35 Years R/oGeeta Nagar, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District- Raipur, Civil & Revenue DistrictRaipur, (Chhattisgarh), Presented Trhough His Power Of Attorney Father Namely Jayanti Lal S/o Shri Durlabhji, Aged Aout 60 Years, R/o- Geeta Nagar, Choubey Colony, Raipur Police StationSaraswati Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District- Raipur, Civil & Revenue District- Raipur, (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

• B. L. Gajpal Presently Working As Land Acquisition Officer And Sub Divisional Officer (R) Raipur, District- Raipur, (Chhattisgarh),...... (Contemnor).

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :

Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 08/09/2016 Heard.

1.

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1784 of 2014.

2.

The direction issued by this Court was to consider the petitioners' claim for payment of compensation in the event the award is passed.

From petitioners' own representation, it is clear that a cheque of Rs.32,96,700/- (Thirty two lacs ninety six thousand and seven

hundred) has been issued and received by the petitioner though with deduction of taxes at source. The petitioners' grievance is against the action of deduction of taxes at source. The remedy lies in challenging the deduction.

3.

Contempt petition is misconceived in law and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra