- (1.) RAJES Kumar, J. Present Contempt Petition under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed with the allegations that the opposite parties have violated the order dated 11-9-1998 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 390 of 2002 U. P. S. I. D. C. v. Ali Mohammad and others.
(2.) IT is alleged that inspite of specific undertaking given by the opposite parties before the Court to deposit the entire decreetal amount within two months, the amount has not been deposited and according to the applicant, this amounts to contempt of Court and the opposite parties are accordingly liable to be punished. On the aforesaid facts, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. K. Misra put appearance on behalf of both the opposite parties. No counter-affidavit has been filed. Only a preliminary objection has been raised namely for compliance of order dated 11-9- 2002 in Civil Revision No. 390 of 2002, the applicant should file an execution proceeding and the present contempt petition does not lie. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. Anwarul Hasan, Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Allahabad and others, reported in 1997 (31) ALR page 550, Smt. Indu Tewari v. Rama Bahadur Chaudhary and another, reported in AIR 1981 Allahabad page 309 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. N. Dey and others v. Bhagy Abati Pramanik and others, reported in 2000 (2) JCLR 305 (SC) : 2000 (4) SCC page 400. Sri G. N. Verma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that a specific undertaking was given by the opposite parties before this Court to deposit the entire decreetal amount within two months and since the amount has not been deposited, it amounts to violation of the order of this Court. In support of its contention, he relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Noor Ali Babul Thanewala v. Sh. K. M. M. Shetty and others, reported in AIR 1990 page 464.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case set out in the Contempt Petition are as follows. It appears that the land of the applicants have been acquired by U. P. S. I. D. C. under the Land Acquisition Act and in Land Acquisition Reference No. 31 of 1996 (Ali Mohammad v. State of U. P. and others), Xth Additional District Judge, Aligarh passed a judgment and decree/award dated 29-5-1999. Against the said award dated 29-5-1999, U. P. S. I. D. C. filed a First Appeal From Order No. 956 of 1999, in which, on 11-10-1999, the following order was passed: "until further orders of this Court, the execution of judgment and decree/award dated 29-5-1999 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Aligarh in Land Acquisition Reference No. 31 of 1996 (Ali Mohammad and others v. State of U. P. and others) shall remain stayed provided the appellant deposits 50% of the enhanced amount including solatium, and up to date within two months from today. It is further provided that on the deposit being made, respondents 1 to 3 may withdraw half of the amount so deposited by the appellant without security. The balance amount shall be kept in deposit with a nationalized bank in a term deposit scheme until further orders of this Court. Any amount already deposited by the appellant will be given due adjustment. In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, this interim order shall automatically stand vacated. ";