Girija N vs S.Chandrasekar IAS

Shaji P.Chaly, J

This contempt petition is filed basically complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 29th December, 2020, are not complied with.

The direction in the judgment reads thus:

“According to the petitioner, the property situated in Re.Sy.No.15/15A and a building bearing No.TMC 01/61, both belonging to her, was acquired under the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called the 'Act

2013'). According to the petitioner, since there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of the land, the amount under the Land Acquisition Act is deposited

before the Court. Anyhow, the petitioner has sought reference under Section 64 of the Act 2013, evident from Ext.P6. The sole relief sought for is consideration of

Ext.P6 by the 2nd respondent District Collector, Collectorate, Kannur.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P6

application submitted by the petitioner, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. â€​

The case of the petitioner is that no orders are passed. An affidavit is placed before this Court along with an order stating that in compliance with

the directions, an order is passed by the District Collector dated 30.1.2021, whereby it is stated that petitioner is not entitled to get reference of the

application submitted under section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013. It is also stated that petitioner is entitled to only for a rehabilitation compensation of Rs.30,000/-.

In my considered opinion, when an order is passed in compliance with the simple directions issued to consider the application, that itself would

suffice the situation so far as the direction is concerned. Learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that Annexure R1(a) order passed by the District

Collector dated 30.1.2021 is an illegal order since compensation on account of the property is granted in other cases even to a tenant. Anyhow, the

District Collector, as the authority under the Act, 2013 in accordance with the direction, has considered application and held that petitioner is not

entitled to get reference in contemplation of section 64 of the Act, 2013.

In that view of the matter, even if assuming that there is illegality in the order passed by the District Collector, that cannot be converted as a

contempt petition and if the petitioner is aggrieved, petitioner shall challenge the same in accordance with law.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not think there is any deliberate or contumacious act on the part of the District Collector in complying

with the simple direction issued by this Court to consider an application pending before the said authority.

Needless to say, contempt petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to make any suitable challenge against the

order issued.