Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 391 (GAU)

CHIRUKANDI JAME MASJID v. V. K. PIPERSENIA

2014-04-01

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT 2. This contempt petition is filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner of WP(C) No.5624 of 2007 and decided by the learned Single Judge on 08.02.2008. 3. By the order under consideration out of which this contempt petition arises, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The operative part of the order dated 08.02.2008 rendered in the WP(C) No. 5624 of 2007 reads as follows: “The grievance made in this writ petition is non-payment of compensation amount in respect of the land acquired from the petitioner. Learned State Counsel has produced the status report in respect of the Land Acquisition Case. The status report reveals that the land acquisition proceeding initiated for acquisition of land lapsed on several occasions. Consequently de-novo proceeding has been initiated. The status report also mentions about the order passed by the Lokayukta, Assam on10.1.2007 directing the respondents to take immediate action in the matter. As per the status report, steps are being taken for initiation and finalization of the land acquisition proceeding in respect of the land. Status report also explains the delay in filing the writ petition as has been questioned by this Court. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to finalize the de-novo proceeding as expeditiously as possible and thereafter to pay the admissible amount of compensation to the petitioner. It is expected that the de-novo proceeding shall be finalized within 6 months. Writ petition is disposed of.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt complains that despite petitioner serving a notice on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 08.02.2008 for its implementation by a further period of 6(six) months from to-day, as an outer limit provided no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained of the order impugned therein. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 08.02.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 5624 of 2007shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 6(six) months from the date of this order. In case if order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents and all other authorities responsible for ensuring compliance shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be passed against each of them. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents are requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 08.02.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 5624 of 2007 to the respondents, i.e. the official concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. The respondents will also communicate the compliance report to the petitioner as soon as it is complied with within the period fixed by this Court. 8. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stands disposed of. No cost.