logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2546 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Sub Appl No. 409 of 2025 & Cont P SR No. 35882 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
Parties : R. Packirisamy Versus A. Kulothungan, IAS., & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: R. Natarajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R. Sreedhar, Additional Government Pleader(Puducherry).
Date of Judgment : 05-01-2026
Head Note :-
Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sub-Section (5) of Section 40 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: To grant leave to the Applicant/Petitioner herein to file the contempt petition against the respondents for their willful disobedience and violations of the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No. 28 of 2018 dated 07.08.2018.

To punish the respondents for their willful and deliberate disobedience and breach of the order passed by this Court in WA.No.28 of 2018 dated 07.08.2018 according to law.)

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The present Sub-Application has been instituted to grant leave to the Applicant /Petitioner herein to file the contempt petition against the respondents for their willful disobedience and violations of the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No. 28 of 2018 dated 07.08.2018.

2. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the records.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Collector Revenue cum Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal vide letter dated 29.02.2024 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of 75% additional compensation for invoking urgency provisions in view of sub-Section (5) of Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

4. The said letter by itself would not constitute contempt of the order of this Court. By order dated 07.08.2018 while disposing of the Writ Appeals, this Court has stated that an award in terms of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 should be passed. The fact that the urgency provision contained in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invoked prior to the enactment of the 2013 Act would not entail the land owners to claim that 75% compensation provided under sub Section (5) of Section 40 of the 2013 Act, in as much as sub-Section (5) makes it very clear that the additional amount of 75% is to be paid only if emergency provisions are invoked under new Act. Therefore, we do not think that the letter dated 29.02.2024 would constitute a contempt.

5. Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though it is stated that a sum of Rs.71,47,258/- has been deposited in Civil Court, no deposit was made.

6. That was not the issue raised is the Writ Appeal. In paragraph No.16 of the order, the Bench had only recorded a statement made to the effect that the money has been deposited. Therefore, we do not see any ground for issuing a notice of contempt.

7. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to the petitioner, and Sub Application stands dismissed. Accordingly, the contempt petition is rejected at SR stage itself. This dismissal will not however preclude the petitioner from making any claim in the manner known to law.
 
  CDJLawJournal