Mst. Falak Naz vs Tariq Mehmood Khan, LAC
This petition sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for alleged non-compliance with a previous court order regarding the payment of compensation for acquired land. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to pay a specific sum of Rs.33,58,460/-, which had been mentioned in the court's earlier order. The core legal question was whether the mention of a claimed amount in a court order, based on a petitioner's assertion, constitutes a binding judicial determination of that specific amount, thereby rendering non-payment a contempt of court. The court held that the amount mentioned in the previous order was merely a reflection of the petitioner's claim and not an adjudicated sum fixed by the court. The court clarified that it had not intended to direct payment of a specific disputed amount without proper adjudication. The key principle laid down is that a court's direction to pay compensation in accordance with statutory provisions does not convert a claimant's asserted figure into a binding judicial decree, and disputes regarding compensation amounts must be resolved through the statutory mechanism of the Referee Court.
- Does the mention of a claimed amount in a court order constitute a binding judicial determination of that amount?
- Can a party initiate contempt proceedings for non-payment of a sum that was merely asserted by the claimant and not adjudicated by the court?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a landowner dissatisfied with the compensation amount determined in a land acquisition award?
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
This petition has been moved for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent for non compliance of the order passed by this Court on 08.04.2010 in its true wisdom, which was clarified on C.M.No.618/2011 on 04.04.2012.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2585/2009 alleging that the respondent acquired her land for construction of Power Channel of Ghazi Barotha Hydropower Project but the compensation has not been released to her and for this purpose she sought indulgence of this Court for issuance of direction to the respondent to pay compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per kanal alongwith compulsory acquisition charges as well as compound interest totaling Rs.33,58,460/-. This Court while deciding aforesaid writ petition on 08.04.2010 mentioned compensation amount as Rs.4,26,000/- according to Award No.89, in para No.1 whereas in ultimate paragraph of the order , the direction was issued in the following manner:- "In this view of the matter , this writ petition is allowed and Land Acquisition Collector is directed to pay the compensation due to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of two months from today ."
Consequently , the petitioner filed C.M.No.618/201 1 for correction/clarification of order dated 08.04.2010 inasmuch as the compensation amount of Rs.4,26,0 00/- mentioned in para No.1 of the order was sought to be corrected as Rs.33,58,460/-. Said application was accepted in the terms that the amount mentioned in para No.1 was corrected from Rs.4,26,000/- to Rs.33,58,460/- but with regard to para No.4, it was observed:- "As far as the operative para i.e. para No.4 of the order dated 08.4.2010 is concerned, this correction would have no bearing upon the operative part."
3. The respondent has been summoned in this case and his stand is that the Award has been announced and they are ready to make payment according to the amount mentioned in the Award, but when the petitioner was confronted with this statement, she conte nded that she approached this Court with the claim of specific amount of Rs.33,58,460/-, therefore, the respondent is bound to pay this amount to the petitioner , failure of which amounts to violation of order of this Court; hence, the proceedings may be initiated against him.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the orders so passed.
5. I am not persuaded to initiate any process of contempt proceedings as the petiti oner had approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondent to pay the compensation amount of her acquired land. The amount mentioned in the writ petition cannot be considered as price of the land, as it was not fixed by this Court after adjudication. It was just a claim of the petitioner, which was incorporated in the order by this Court on her assertion, which in no way can be termed to be the amount determined by this Court. If anybody is not satisfied with the compensation amount, mentioned in the Award, he/she has been given a remedy before the Referee Court according to the mechanism provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was neither the intention of this Court to direct the respondent to pay specified amount, as claimed by the petitioner, nor it could be, as it would have been without adjudication. Even otherwise, the petitioner is entitled to recover the amount from the respondent whatever mentioned in the Award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector published in the official Gazette. If she is not satisfied with the amount so mentioned in the Award, as stated earlier, she is at liberty to approach the Referee Court for its enhancement.
6. In view of the above, this petition has no merits;hence, dismissed. However , before parting with this order , I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to disburse the compensation amount, determined in the Award qua acquired land of the petitioner , forthwith.