M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THIS contempt petition filed under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prays for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance with order dated 1.11.2004, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 2834 of 2004. It is appropriate to mention that in the aforementioned order dated 1.11.2004, direction was issued to respondent No. 1 to deposit the amount of compensation to the petitioners in lieu of their land acquired by the State of Punjab. The operative part of the order dated 1.11.2004 reads as under : "Resultantly, the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Rupnagar, and the Warrants of Attachment dated 22.12.2003 are set aside. However, as the payment has not been made to the claimants, therefore the State of Punjab is directed to deposit the entire compensation due to the claimants i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Revision allowed. Copy of the order be given dasti. November 1, 2004 Sd/- (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge"
(2.) THEREAFTER , the petitioners through their counsel served legal notice dated 15.2.2005, calling upon the respondents to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court, in the learned Executing Court (Annexure P-1). In response to the legal notice, respondent No. 1 is stated to have issued a letter dated 23.2.2005, to respondent No. 2 informing him that the land was acquired for their department and the compensation was to be paid by them. It was further stated that earlier also respondent No. 2 had been informed for depositing the amount of enhanced compensation in compliance to order of this Court vide letter dated 30.12.2004. It has been alleged that respondent No. 2 has willfully, intentionally and on extraneous considerations disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 1.11.2004 and, therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted for intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court. It is appropriate to mention that earlier to the present contempt petition i.e. C.O.C.P. No. 460 of 2005, another contempt petition, namely, C.O.C.P. No. 548 of 2001 has come up for consideration of this Court on 20.2.2006. The aforementioned petition was disposed of with a warning to respondent No. 2 and also with the observation that if in future any other contempt petition is received against him then serious view was to be taken. The concluding part of the aforementioned order passed on 20.2.2006 in C.O.C.R. No. 548 of 2001, reads as under : "In view of the above, the contempt stands purged. However, this case leaves much to desire. The petitioner had 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 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. The cases of the citizens take their own time to be decided and when case is decided on the statement made by the respondent, then it becomes incumbent on the respondent to stick to the time schedule given by him. However, in the present case even when the contempt petition was filed and the undertaking was recorded on 23.7.2004, nothing was done. The petitioner was again compelled to file C.M. No. 24480-CII of 2004. The aforementioned conduct of the respondent is contemptuous and deserves to be condemned. However, since the award has now been passed, I am taking a lenient view by warning the respondent to be careful in future. It is made clear that if any such contempt petition is filed in this Court against the respondent, then serious view shall be taken and a copy of this order shall be added with such a contempt petition. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Punjab so as to place on the personal file of the Officer. The Computer Section of the High Court is directed to make a note of this case so as to comply with the directions with regard to adding of a copy of this order. When the instant contempt petition came up for consideration on 9.3.2006, a detailed order was passed and after quoting the above mentioned part, it was observed as under : "Learned Advocate General, Punjab, who has appeared, has been furnished a copy of the order dated 20.2.2006. Learned Advocate General has assured the Court that follow up action shall be taken. However, in the present case, during the course of arguments Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has pointed out that Civil Revision No. 2834 of 2004 was decided on 1.11.2004 directing the concerned Land Acquisition Collector to disburse the entire amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of the order. Learned counsel has further pointed out that Award No. 9, announced on 1.4.1999, was announced by Shri B.S. Sekhon, Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 1, and respondent No. 2 had nothing to do with the aforementioned award. The disbursement of the compensation was required to be made by respondent No. 1 only. It has further been asserted by the learned counsel that notice of contempt was received by respondent No. 2 on 14.6.2005. It is also accepted that on 15.2.2005, a legal notice was received from the counsel for the petitioners. The compensation was paid on 27.6.2005. It was on account of the aforementioned reason that when the matter came up on 24.1.2006, this Court has recorded that the amount of Rs. 61,12,457/- has been deposited with the Additional District Judge, Ropar. However, on the insistence of the counsel for the petitioners, the hearing was deferred as additional facts were sought to be brought on record to highlight the conduct of respondent No. 2. Accordingly, additional affidavit as a counter of the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 has been placed on record, which is dated 18.2.2006. In the aforementioned affidavit a report dated 2.5.2005, by the Joint Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, with regard to the complaint of Shri J.S. Aulakh has also been referred to. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, during the course of arguments has taken a categorical stand that respondent No. 2 has nothing to do with Award No. 9, dated 1.4.1999 and, therefore, he was not responsible for disbursement of the compensation, which on receipt of contempt notice of this Court, respondent No. 2 has tried to get disbursed and that the complaint of the petitioners as well as Shri J.S. Aulakh is motivated. At this stage, Mr. M.S. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the stand of respondent No. 2 is against record because Award No. 9 was transferred to respondent No. 2 along with other awards. He requests for a short adjournment to disclose the correct date by filing an appropriate affidavit. Let the needful be done a week before the adjourned date with a copy in advance to the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Learned State counsel Mr. Satish Bhanot shall also get hold of the record in respect of Award Nos. 468, 469, 470, 471, 476, 477 and 478. The record shall also be produced with regard to Award No. 9, dated 1.4.1999 along with record, if any, with regard to its transfer either to respondent No. 2 or to any other officer and the whole correspondence of respondent No. 2 with PUDA and the Government. The learned State counsel shall also apprise the Court with regard to the status of case FIR No. 46, dated 20.8.1999, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, against respondent No. 2, and all other FIRs registered against respondent No. 2. List again on 20.3.2006"
(3.) IN pursuance to the direction issued on 9.3.2006, affidavit dated 18.3.2006, has been filed by the petitioner by deposing that Award No. 9, dated 1.4.1999, in respect of which enhanced compensation was required to be disbursed to the petitioners was transferred to respondent No. 2 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, through Special Messenger vide letter No. 1399/Reader, dated 11.5.2004. The letter dated 20.5.2004, has also been placed on record along with the detailed list of various awards transferred to respondent No. 2. In the aforementioned list, case file of Award No. 9 has been shown at Serial No. 9.;