THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 615 OF 2010 Dated: 20.10.2010 Between: Pathuri Satyanarayana ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Tiwari and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 615 OF 2010 ORDER : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court dated 04.11.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.23888 of 2009 in W.P.No.18248 of 2009, which reads as under: “ Counsel for petitioner relied on AIR 2006 S.C.1716 and made certain submissions. In the light of the facts and circumstances, interim direction until further orders.” I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. W.P.No.18248 of 2009 has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not paying the enhanced re-determined compensation to the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.14.14 cents situated in Devulapalli Villagte, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District, is arbitrary and illegal. It was claimed in the writ petition that the lands in question were acquired for a public purpose invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisiton Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and by an award dated 31.03.1979, the compensation was determined. The writ petitioner not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Pursuant thereto, O.P.No.44 of 1980 was taken up on the file of the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Kovvur and the same was decreed on 18.02.1982 granting enhancement of compensation. It is stated that in respect of the lands covered by the very same award dated 31.03.1979, some of the persons interested carried the matter to this Court by filing A.S.No.885 of 1983, A.S.No.425 of 2001 and batch, in which this Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.11,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per acre. Claiming that as per Section 28-A of the Act, the petitioner herein was entitled to the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre, the petitioner made several representations including the representation dated 23.06.2009 before the respondents authorities. Alleging that the respondents failed to consider his request, Writ Petition No.18248 of 2009 was filed, in which the interim order was passed as stated above. Alleging that the above said order has not been complied with, the present contempt case was filed on 19.04.2010. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that in compliance with the interim direction passed by this Court, the petitioner’s claim was considered and an order was already passed on 20.09.2010. Though the said fact has not been disputed, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since this Court directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 23.06.2009 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2006 S.C. 1716, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for enhanced compensation even without reference to the above decision of the Supreme Court amounts to deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court. A perusal of the order dated 20.09.2010 shows that the petitioner’s representation dated 23.06.2009 for enhanced compensation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner, who had already sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, was not entitled for the benefit of Section 28-A of the Act. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 2006 S.C.1716 is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Be that as it may, this Court never directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation in terms of the order of the Supreme Court in AIR 2006 S.C.1716. The direction was only to consider the petitioner’s representation for enhanced compensation as per the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.885 of 1983, A.S.No.425 of 2001 and batch and pay the enhanced re-determined compensation on par with the similarly situated persons under the same notification. Hence, the mere fact that the respondents failed to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 2006 S.C.1716 cannot be a ground to hold that the respondents had violated the order passed by this Court. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim by order dated 20.09.2010 gives rise to a new cause of action and even assuming that the said order is erroneous, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by availing the appropriate remedy as available under law. Hence, this is not a fit case for taking cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ____________ Date: 20.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd