Sk. Mohindur Rahaman vs Amiya Ghosh & Ors. on 7 September, 1998

Calcutta High Court
Sk. Mohindur Rahaman vs Amiya Ghosh & Ors. on 7 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999) 1 CALLT 47 HC
Author: S Sinha
Bench: S Sinha

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. This contempt application arises out of an alleged-disobedience of this court’s order dated 20th January, 1995 passed in Civil Order No. 18966 (W) of 1993 which has since been reported in 1996(1) C.H.N. 199. In the aforementioned decision, this court upon taking into consideration the various decisions of the Supreme Court, inter alia, hold that when a policy decision has been adopted by the State, the same should be given effect to. The petitioner has filed an application for initiation of contempt proceeding wherein a Rule has been issued.

2. In appears, upon hearing Mr. Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sirkar. learned counsel for the alleged contemners, that the local advisory committee whose term has been extended in terms of this court’s order dated 29.8.95, has taken Into consideration the case of the petitioner, but did not recommend his name for employment as certain discrepancies have been found in the name of his father. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon a document dated 31.10.91 being Memo No. 2832, whereby and whereunder a certificate was Issued that the land of the petitioner has been acquired. The name of the father of the petitioner shall appear from the records of the Land Acquisition Proceedings and/or other revenue records In relation to the plot In question being J. L. No. 291 which has been acquired in L.A. Case No. 146/73-74. An Award bearing serial No. 192 had been passed therein and possession of the land has been taken on 21.5.79 and compensation has been paid on 18.3.80.

3. As the matter relates only to verification of the name of the father of the petitioner. In my opinion, Interest of justice will be subserved if the Collector of Midnapore District verify the authenticity of the aforementioned records with reference to the identity of the petitioner vis-a-vis his fathers name and there cannot be any doubt that in the event, it is found that the land of the petitioner has actually been acquired, there cannot be any difficulty in granting an appointment to the petitioner in terms of the scheme.

4. In this view of the matter, this application is disposed of with a direction upon the Land Acquisition Collector, Midnapore, to consider the aforementioned alleged discrepancies as regards father’s name of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order at an early date and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. While doing so, he may give an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner as also a representative of the respondent and also take into consideration the views of the Land Advisory Committee; but such view shall not be binding on him.

5. With the aforementioned directions, this contempt application is disposed of and Rule is discharged.

Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertaking.

6. Application disposed of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *