1 cp57.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 57 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4031 OF 2006 Maroti s/o Mujaji Ghodke, Age: 72 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Antarwali, Tq. Georai, District Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Beed & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 20TH SEPTEMBER,2011 PER COURT : . In pursuant to the notice issued in this contempt petition on 24-02-2010 by this Court, the respondents have appeared before this Court. Till 23-06-2011 no reply was filed by the Government Officers who are party respondents. Therefore, 2 cp57.10 this Court was constrained to pass detailed order on the said date which reads thus : "This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 14-06-2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition NO. 4031 of 2006. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition with following directions. "4. We direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for enhanced compensation in the light of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on its own merits within a reasonable time and in any case within a period of four months from today. In case respondents 1 and 2 arrive at a conclusion that petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation, they should ensure that respondent No.3 who represents the acquiring body makes the payment to the petitioner of balance amount within reasonable time i.e. within 3 months since 3 cp57.10 the decision by respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 while determining the application under Section 28-A, apart from petitioner shall also allow opportunity of being heard to respondent No.3." 2. In spite of the specific directions, the Collector, Beed, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaikwadi Project, Beed and the Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Sailu Division, Sailu failed to follow the said directions. It is the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the applications of the petitioner for enhanced compensation in the light of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Officer are not decided yet. 3. In spite of notice to the respondents, no reply is filed. When the matter was called out in the morning session, learned A.G.P. requested to keep the matter at 2-30 p.m. Accordingly, when the matter is called at 2-30 p.m. for hearing, learned A.G.P. submits that file is not traceable. 4 cp57.10 4. The fact remains that there is no reply filed by the respondents or no instructions are given to the office of the Government Pleader. 5. Issue show cause notice to the Collector, Beed, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaikwadi Project, Beed and the Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Sailu Division, Sailu, returnable on 13-07-2011. The respondents to show cause why the appropriate proceedings should not be initiated against them for not following the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court. 6. All these three Officers referred hereinabove shall remain present before this Court on 13-07-2011 at 10-30 a.m. If they failed to appear on 13-07-2011 at 10-30 a.m. this Court will be constrained to issue non bailable warrant to secure their presence. . Learned A.G.P. appearing for them undertakes to communicate this order. 7. In case, compliance of the order of the Division Bench is made before 5 cp57.10 next date of hearing, liberty to the respondents to move this Court for dispensing with their presence. . Hamdast allowed." 2. In pursuant to the order dated 23-06-2011, the respondent - Collector, Beed, Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Sailu Division, Sailu remained present before this Court on 13-07-2011. This Court on 13-07-2011 passed the following order. " Heard. 2 By order dated 23rd June, 2011, this Court directed the Collector, Beed, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaikwadai Project, Beed and the Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Sailu Division, Sailu to remain present before this Court on 13th July, 2011. 3. Today, the Collector, Beed and the Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Sailu Division, Sailu are 6 cp57.10 present. 4. The learned AGP has filed Civil Application No.17355/2011 clarifying the position that due to non communication of the order dated 23rd June, 2011, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaikwadai Project, Beed could not remain present today. The learned AGP submits that the said order was communicated to Mr.Prashant Shelke,who was the then SPl. LAO and not the present Spl. LAO, Beed. He, therefore, prays for dispensing with the presence of the applicant Special LAO, J.P.,Beed. Since the Collector has filed affidavit and on the part of the Collector and Special LAO the order of this Court has been complied with, in my opinion, presence of the Special LAO, Beed and Collector on the subsequent date of hearing is not necessary. Therefore, their presence is dispensed with. Civil Application No.17355/2011 stands disposed of. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has brought to the notice of this Court the letter written to 7 cp57.10 him by the Executive Engineer, Lower Dudhna Project, Sailu stating therein that the entire payment of arrears towards award u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act will be paid to the petitioner within three weeks from today. The learned Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the amount sanctioned by the State Government will be deposited with the Special LAO, J.P., Beed within three weeks from today. Upon depositing such amount, the Special LAO,Beed to disburse the said amount to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of deposit of the said amount. It is made clear that in case the statement which is made before this Court by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 is not complied with on or before 4th August, 2011, the respondent No.3 will have to remain present before this Court on 5th August, 2011. 6. List the Contempt Petition for further hearing on 5th August, 2011." 8 cp57.10 3. When the matter was again heard on 05-08-2011, learned A.G.P. made statement before this Court that, the Land Acquisition Officer will calculate the amount of interest on the delayed payment and forward it to the respondent No. 3 on or before 15th August, 2011. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner was also recorded in the order dated 05-08-2011. The order dated 05-08-2011 reads thus : " The learned AGP appearing for the State submits that the Land Acquisition Officer will calculate the amount of interest on the delayed payment and forward it to the respondent No.3 on or before 15th August, 2011. 2. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment w.e.f. 24th January, 2007. It is also submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner / claimant is entitled for 15% interest on delayed payment. 9 cp57.10 3. The LAO respondent No.2 to calculate the interest amount of interest keeping in mind 15% rate of interest and forward it to the respondent No.3. S.O. to 18th August, 2011. Authenticated copy of this order may be given to the learned AGP. " . Thereafter, again the matter was listed on 18-08-2011, however, same was adjourned to 06-09-2011 and thereafter kept for hearing on 20-09-2011. 4. All the respondents have filed affidavit in reply and tendered unconditional apology for not complying the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court within time. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed further affidavit in reply on 05-09-2011. Paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 read thus : 10 cp57.10 "4. I say and submit that, on the same date the demand of award amount Rs. 24,52,106/- is forwarded to the acquiring body through Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition (Coordination). The acquiring body had deposited the said award amount by cheque no. 297923 dated 21.7.2011. 5. I say and submit that, in the present Contempt Petition, the Hon'ble High Court has passed the order on 5.8.2011 directing to the Deponent to calculate the amount of interest at the rate of 15% on the delayed payment and forward it to the Respondent no. 3 on or before 15.8.2011. According to the above direction of the Hon'ble High Court the Deponent calculated the amount of interest on delayed payment for the period of 22.4.2007 to 9.8.2011 i.e. 51 months and 18 days amounting to Rs.2,84,846/- (on awarded amount of Rs.4,41,622/- to the acquired land of Petitioner and other land holders) and forwarded with demand to the Respondent no. 3 i.e. Acquiring body on dated 10.8.2011. The copy of demand forwarded to the acquiring Body is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R-1. 6. It is also submitted that, the 11 cp57.10 Petitioner had already been given the interest at the rate of 9% and 15% from 22.7.1976 to 21.4.2007, as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act." 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that, the petitioner has no grievance about the calculation towards the interest amount. However, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4031 of 2006 was entitled to compensation and interest thereupon, in the year 2007 itself as per the judgment and order of the Division Bench, but the respondents have deprived legitimate claim and delayed payment of compensation and also interest thereon. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for some costs from the respondents. 7. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents time to time and last affidavit 12 cp57.10 filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 05-09-2011. It is not in dispute that, on delayed payment, interest amount is calculated from the date of award till August 2011. So far calculation of payment towards interest is concerned, the petitioner has no grievance. It is true that, the respondents have delayed the payment of compensation and interest thereupon, however, in view of unconditional apology tendered by them and since the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition, has been complied with by the respondents, in my opinion, prayer of the petitioner to impose the costs upon the respondents, is difficult to accept. Since the interest is calculated by the respondents from the year 2007 till August 2011, therefore, such prayer for awarding costs cannot be entertained. . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Poddar vs. Dhani Ram and others, reported in (2002) 1 S.C.C. 766 taken a view that 13 cp57.10 even if the order is complied after notices are issued in the contempt proceedings, the Court seizes with the contempt jurisdiction should adjudicate the said contempt proceedings with judicial grace and magnanimity. 8. In this view of the matter, nothing further survives for consideration in this contempt petition and same stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11