P.Jayavel v. Karthika

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI P.Jayavel

...Petitioner

vs.

1.

Karthika, The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

2.

Jaya Chandra Banu Reddy, The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

3.

Karpagavalli, The Revenue Divisional Officer / LAO, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office, Krishnagiri.

4.

Kumarasamy, The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (Water Resources Organization), Mel Pannar Vadi Nila Uttkottam, Dharmapuri - 5.

5.

K.Ramamoorthy, The Chief Engineer, (Water Resources Organization), Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

6.

Pankajkuamr Bansal, I.A.S., The Principal Secretary, Page No.1 of 5

The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk , Chennai - 600 005.

...Respondents

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to punish the Respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18469 of 2010. For Petitioner : Mr.Jesten Tamil For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan Assisted by Mr.U.Bharanidharan, AGP

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition is filed seeking to punish the Respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18469 of 2010.

2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 24.03.2023, the respondents/contemnors appeared before this Court, hence, their appearance is dispensed with.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though this Court, vide order dated 09.09.2019 issued direction to the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on par with the compensation awarded in LAOP.Nos.108 to 116 of 1989 dated Page No.2 of 5

15.09.1995, however, the same was paid to the petitioner only 01.04.2022 and that too the interest was calculated only till 31.12.2001 and no 30% Solatium with 12% Additional market value with interest was paid to the petitioner for the period of 01.01.2022 to 01.04.2022. Hence, this Contempt petition.

4. However, on perusal of the materials placed on record, it is evident that, this Court had only issued direction to pay enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on par with the compensation awarded in LAOP.Nos.108 to 116 of 1989 dated 15.09.1995.

5. Insofar as payment of Costs, the same stood already withdrawn even in the order in Writ petition. However, inadvertently, the cost has been included to be paid. The said cost, having already been withdrawn, the respondents/contemnors are not required to pay the same and the earlier order is clarified to that effect.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that, no wilful disobedience has been committed by the respondents/contemnors. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition stands closed. 31.03.2023 Page No.3 of 5

skt Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No M.DHANDAPANI., J.

skt Page No.4 of 5

31.03.2023 Page No.5 of 5