IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1797 of 2007 BIPIN KUMAR SINGH, son of Late Tej Narayan Singh, resident of village- Chhitrour, P.S.- Matihani, District- Begusarai. ----------- Applicant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sanjiv Hans, the Collector, Begusarai. 3. Tulsi Hazra, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Begusarai. 4. Nawal Kishore, the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Begusarai. ---------- Opposite Parties. ----------- 7 21 .10.2008 This contempt application has been filed alleging that the order dated 11.4.2007 has not been complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Collector of the District. This Court on 11.9.2008 has passed an order stating therein that the Court was ‘grossly dissatisfied’ with the show cause filed. Prima facie, I also, had the same reaction after pursuing the show cause but on perusal of pleading, the show cause, facts and the order of this Court, I do not find that this Court can hold that the opposite parties are in contempt of the order dated 11.4.2007. The facts that the Land Acquisition Proceeding was instituted being Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1992-93 under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to 2 as the ‘Act’). After about 10 years back, the petitioner moved this Court in a writ application stating that he should be paid certain interest etc. with respect to said proceeding. The second grievance in the writ application which is the subject matter of this contempt application was that after the Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1992-93, a separate case was instituted under the Act being Case Nos. 1 and 4 of 1994-95 with respect to 60 acres and 1.31 acres of lands which were also the subject matter of the Acquisition Proceedings in 1992-93. This Court was not satisfied with the calculation of payments given at paragraph 13 of the second supplementary counter affidavit of respondents 2, 3 and 4 which basically calculated the land value on the basis of the proceeding instituted in 1992-93 and 1994-95. Fresh proceedings were again instituted numbered as 8 and 9 of 2006-07 in pursuance to notice issued under Section 9(1). The order of this Court indicates that the respondents were asked to recalculate the 3 amount and the petitioner was directed to receive the amount on protest, if necessary, and pursue the statutory remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The show cause indicates that the value of the land was recalculated on the basis of the valuation of the land in the year 2006-07 and solatium interest etc. were paid on the said value. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to receive solatium and interest of the lands acquired from the year 1992-93. In my opinion the petitioner cannot claim that he should be awarded solatium and interest from the year 1992-93 unless the said solatium and interest is paid on the value of the land as it was, in the year 1992-93. The petitioner having been awarded the value of the land according to its enhanced value in the year 2006-07, would not be entitled to receive solatium from 1992-93 at the amended value of 2006-07. From the statements in the counter affidavit of the writ application, it would appear that the State had valued the land in the year 1994-95 4 at Rs. 42,103.44/- and the amount of compensation was also paid for the land acquisition proceeding instituted in the year 1994 as per statements made at paragraph 14 of the writ application. Undoubtedly, it goes without saying that the petitioner would be entitled to raise any question under Section 18 with respect to the valuation of the land or the rate of interest fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The main grievance of the petitioner is that although possession was taken in the year 1992-93 of the said lands he has not been paid any compensation from the year 1992-93. With respect to the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to claim damages but these damages can be only claimed for the relevant period. It cannot be held by this court that the petitioner would be entitled to damages which should be paid on the value of the land as it was in the year 2006-07. For this purpose the petitioner may apply to the Collector and he should consider 5 the fact that the lands in question were in possession of the State from the year 1992-93 and the petitioner has not been compensated for the said period. If such application is filed then the Collector would quantify the amount of damages suffered by the petitioner on account of being deprived of possession of the property which was subsequently acquired by a notification in the year 2006. The alternative remedy for the petitioner is to file a suit. This Court finds that there is substantial compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.4.2008 and, therefore, cannot find the opposite parties guilty of having violated the order of this Court. The contempt application is disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)