Contempt Petn. No. 262 of 1992. Case: Sudhakar Mahadeorao Kawale Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberContempt Petn. No. 262 of 1992
CounselFor Petitioner: Satish R. Deshpande, Advs. and For Respondents: A. M. Gorde, Advs.
JudgesH. W. Dhabe , J. and B. V. Chavan , J.
IssueContempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) - Section 12
Citation1994 CriLJ 735
Judgement DateApril 29, 1993
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

  1. In answer to notice to Show Cause in this Contempt Petition, the Land Acquisition Officer/Contemner has sought to justify his action of not complying with our orders regarding the payment of enhanced compensation to the petitioner on the ground that since the Petitioner had chosen to apply for a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ('Act') and since the reference was actually made in his Land Acquisition case in the Civil Court, which awarded him enhanced compensation, he was not entitled to enhanced compensation under S. 28A of the said Act on the basis of the enhanced compensation awarded in some other reference in similar cases decided on 17-4-1990. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the State upon the right to enhanced compensation granted under S. 28-A of the Act and has urged that even though a reference is made to the Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner in his Land Acquisition Case and even though some enhanced compensation is granted to him thereunder, he is still entitled to claim higher compensation as awarded in similar case by the reference Court in view of the provisions of S. 28A of the Act.

  2. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for us to go into the question of interpretation of Section 28-A of the Act because the above contention that a reference was made at the instance of the petitioner in his Land Acquisition Case under Section 18 of the Act and that compensation payable to him was enhanced therein by the Civil Court, was not urged in the original Writ Petition No. 917 of 1992 decided on 29-4-1992, in which the petitioner had urged before us that, we should direct the respondents in the said petition to pay the enhanced compensation awarded in similar case decided by the Civil Court on 17-4-1990 relying upon the letter of the Collector dated 21-11-91 by which he had directed that in accordance with the provisions of Section 28A of the Act, the claimants concerned should be given enhanced compensation upto 31-1-1992. Since the direction in the said Writ Petition No. 917 of 1992 decided on 29-4-1992 was not complied with by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner preferred Contempt Petition No. 173/1992. The respondents in the said Writ Petition No. 917 /92 had sought review of the order dated 29-4-1992 passed therein. Neither in the said...

To continue reading

Request your trial