- (1.) This petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 came up with initial prayer of willful disobedience of order dated 7-11-2000 passed in C.W.P. No. 5143 of 2000. In the afdrementioned petition, a statement was made that compensation in respect of the land acquired had already been paid to some persons and a formal award was to be made in accordance with law, within two months from the date i.e. 7-11-2000. Learned State counsel had further stated that whatever was found due to the petitioner under the award, the same was to be paid to him within one month thereafter. When the aforementioned directions were not carried out the petitioner filed C.O.C.P. No. 548 of 2001. The contempt petition was disposed of with an undertaking that the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 7-11-2000 be complied with in a period of 8 weeks from 23-7-2004. As a consequence the rule was discharged with liberty to the petitioner to revive the contempt petition if such a necessity was to arise. Respondents did not comply with the aforementioned undertaking given in C.O.C.P. No. 548 of 2001, as recorded in the order dated 23-7-2004 and the petitioner was compelled to file C.M. No. 24480-CII of 2004 with a prayer for revival of the contempt proceedings. Notice of application has been issued and the same has been heard on numerous occasions. When the matter came up for consideration on 9-2-2006, following order was passed by this Court :- "The writ petition filed by the applicant-petitioner was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 7-11-2000. As the directions issued by the Division Bench were not complied with, the applicant-petitioner filed C.O.C.P. No. 548 of 2001. The learned State counsel in the aforementioned contempt petition made a statement that the directions issued by this Court for pronouncement of the award in respect of the land of the applicant-petitioner would be pronounced within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order i.e. 23-7-2004. In view of the statement made by the learned State counsel, the rule was discharged with liberty to the petitioner to revive the contempt proceedings in case the directions were not complied with. The needful has not been done although a period of more than one year and five months have passed. As a consequence, the applicant-petitioner has been forced to file another application seeking revival of the contempt petition. Notice of the application has been issued and various adjournments have been granted to the respondent. However, neither any reply has been filed to the application nor it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the orders stand complied with. Therefore, there is no option but to direct respondent- Depinder Singh, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Punjab, S.C.O. 12, Phase-I, SAS Nagar, District Ropar, to appear in person tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. along with the record. List again on 10-2-2006."
(2.) In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, Sh. P. S. Sodhi, Collector, Land Acquisition, Urban Development Department, SAS Nagar, Punjab appeared before this Court on 10-2-2006. He filed an affidavit, undertaking to comply with the directions of this Court by passing an award within two weeks and the hearing was deferred for today with liberty to the petitioner to do the needful on or before 17-2-2006. Learned State counsel has produced a copy of the award dated 17-2-2006 and on instructions from Mr. P. S. Sodhi, Collector, Land Acquisition, Urban Development Department, Punjab (PUDA Bhawan), Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali, has stated that the award was announced on 17-2-2006 in the presence of Tarlochan Singh, son of the petitioner.
(3.) In view of the above, the contempt stands purge. However, this case leaves much to desire. The petitioner has to approach this Court first by filing C.W.P. No. 5143 of 2000, which was disposed of on 7-11 -2000 on the statement made by the learned State counsel. Thereafter, when the orders were not complied with, the petitioner was forced to file C.O.C.P. No. 548 of 2001. The contempt petition was filed on 24-4-2001 and the same was again disposed on 23-7-2004 on the undertaking given by the respondent to take appropriate action within 8 weeks from the date of order i.e. 23-7-2004. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file an application to revive the proceeding, which has been filed being C.M. No. 24480-CII of 2004. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file an application to revive the proceeding, which has been filed being C.M. No. 24480-CII of 2004. The matter remained pending since 2004 and it was only on 9-2-2006 when the respondent was asked to appear personally. Then he appeared on 10-2-2006 and undertook to pass an award. Accordingly, now award has been passed.;