IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 456 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 10, 2009 Asha Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Ajay Kumar, Defence Estate Officer, Pathankot .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Land measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas, belonging to Smt. Mayo Devi, situated in the revenue estate of village Bhadroya, Tehsil Pathankot, was acquired by Union of India for defence purpose vide notification dated 18.2.1970. After the death of Mayo Devi in the year 1979, her estate was inherited by the petitioner and two others. They filed a writ petition in which the High Court ordered the appointment of an Arbitrator for determining the amount of compensation payable for acquisition of the property. Having been appointed as an Arbitrator, learned District Judge, Gurdaspur gave an award dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure P-1), whereby the market value of the acquired land was C.O.C.P. No. 456 of 2006 -2- assessed at the rate of Rs. 350/- per Marla with solatium @ 30% on such market value and interest thereon. Aggrieved of the same, an appeal was filed by Union of India as well as the respondent, which was, however, dismissed by the High court on 28.3.2008(Annexure P-2). According to the petitioner, despite the announcement of the award by the Arbitrator, which award was upheld in appeal by the High Court, the respondent did not release the payment. The petitioner also wrote a letter dated 7.5.2008(Annexure P-3) to the respondent requesting therein for making the payment to the petitioner. In response to the said letter, the petitioner received a letter dated 15.5.2008(Annexure P-4) wherein it was mentioned that payment of Rs. 2443.75p. had been made by the Collector. The letter was, however, silent as regards the principal amount of Rs. 16,100/-. The petitioner again sent a detailed letter dated 18.5.2008(Annexure P-5) to the respondent claiming therein that the total amount of Rs. 16,100/- along with solatium, interest and cost be paid to her. She, however, denied the receipt of Rs. 2443.75p. Despite all attempts, the compensation for the land which was requisitioned by the respondent in the year 1970, had not been paid and, therefore, according to her the respondent be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with law for committing contempt of Court in not complying with the award dated 7.11.2005 which stood upheld in appeal on 28.3.2008. As is clear from the records, the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation for the land which stood requisitioned by Union C.O.C.P. No. 456 of 2006 -3- of India for defence purpose. In case, the payment is not made by the respondent, the petitioner is always entitled to execute the award like any other money decree. By not releasing the payment under the award, the respondent does not expose himself to the launching of contempt proceedings against him, more so, when no direction was issued by the learned Arbitrator or by this Court that the payment had to be released in a particular time frame. In view of the above, the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 10, 2009 JUDGE satish