Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aditya Nath Dwivedi vs S.B. Singh on 14 March, 2016
CONC-2371-2013
(ADITYA NATH DWIVEDI Vs S.B. SINGH)
14-03-2016
Shri S.K.Dubey, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, counsel for the respondent No.2.
None for the respondent No. 1 & 3.
This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance with Court order dated 03-07-2013 passed in W.P. No.11335/2013. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 Arun Mishra, Branch Manager, Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank, District Rewa, has complied with Court order dated 03-07-2013 whereby the respondent No.2 was directed to act upon letter/order dated 02-05-2012 (Annexure-P/5) of the Land Acquisition Officer within fifteen days from the date of filing of certified copy of order dated 03-07-2013 before the respondent No.2.
Aforesaid contention has been controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the respondent No.2 has not complied with the letter of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 24-07-2012 (Annexure-P/6). Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 counters aforesaid submission by stating that by Court order dated 03-07-2013, no direction for compliance with letter dated 24-7-2012 (annexure-P/6) was made.
A perusal of record reveals that by Annexure-P/5 dated 02-05-2012, the Land Acquisition Officer had directed the respondent No.2 Branch Manager, Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank that if any amount is left in the account of the respondent No.3 Kanhaiyalal Dubey, the same, to the extent of Rs.2,15,526/-, be withdrawn from the account of respondent No.3 Kanhaiyalal Dubey and credited to the account of petitioner Adityanath Dwivedi. However, if no amount is left in the account, any amount disbursed to him, which is deposited in Fixed Deposit or any other deposit, be frozen. A perusal of letter dated 24-07-2012 (Annexure-P/6) written by Land Acquisition Officer to respondent No.2 reveals that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken cognizance of the subsequent events and held that the respondent No.3 Kanhaiyalal Dubey has neither filed any authentic record with regard to his land affected by acquisition; nor has made any arrangement for surrendering the excess amount of Rs.2,15,526/- paid to him; therefore, the respondent No.2 was directed to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,15,526/- from the Fixed Deposit or any other deposits and pay it in the account of petitioner Aditya Nath Dwivedi.
Thus, it is clear that Annexure-P/6 is in fact not only reminder of Annexure-P/5 (as referred in order dated 3-7-2013) but the scope of action directed to be taken by respondent no. 2 in two letters, is different. The action directed to be taken by Annexure-P/6 begins where the action directed to be taken by Annexure-P/5 ends.
The Court by order dated 03-07-2013, has directed the respondent No.2 only to comply with the direction as contained in letter Annexure-P/5. No direction was made by the Court to comply with the directions as contained in Annexure-P/6; however, Annexure-P/6 was mentioned in the Court order.
Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to move review application in respect of Court order dated 03-07-2013 passed in W.P.No.11335/2013.
He is free to do so subject to law of limitation. Since learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to prosecute this contempt petition any further, it stands disposed of.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE