Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday issued a show cause notice against government officials to explain why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for not implementing court orders.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while issuing notice to District Commissioner, Ganderbal, Chief Executive officer, Sonamarg Development Authority, and Tourism authorities noted that on pretext of this and that thing, authorities are intentionally violating court orders.
Justice Dhar recorded that a judgement passed by the writ court in 2012 is yet to be implemented. “The respondents, it seems, are avoiding implementation of the judgment on one pretext or the other by constituting different committees and by taking a decision to resort to acquisition proceedings. The approach adopted by the respondents, prima facie, smacks of defiance and disregard for orders of the Court,” Justice Dhar said.
The petitioner, Farooq Ahmad, had alleged that there was non-compliance of the judgment passed by the Writ Court on 31 August, 2012, wherein respondents were directed to take immediate steps for demolishing the structure raised on his land in question.
“It was however, made clear that the respondents would be also at liberty to estimate the cost of the structures so raised by them, to be got assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, through its executive agency, but in that eventuality, the petitioner has to pay the estimated cost of the structures so raised,” the writ court had said.
Though the respondents challenged this order before Division bench of the High Court and before the Supreme court but it was dismissed and the decision of the writ court upheld to handover the land in question belonging to the petitioner.
The court recorded the statement of facts vide order dated 17, June 2020, wherein a Committee was constituted by the government to ascertain claim of the petitioner and determine the specific location of the petitioner’s land by reference to all valid documents as per law.
The report dated 20 July, 2020, is stated to have been submitted by the Committee to the government.
As per the report, it was concluded that the land in question is recorded in the name of the petitioner and as per demarcation of the land in question, the same is in possession of Sonamarg Development Authority on which building having dimensions 40×121 belonging to Sonamarg Development Authority is situated.
“Without actually handing over the structure and land to the petitioner, the respondents have stated that they have implemented court order which takes us to the statement of facts filed by CEO, SDA,” the High Court said.
In the statement of facts it was stated that the matter was taken up by the said officer with Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Tourism Department through a series of communications, latest being communication dated 17 August, 2021.
According to the statement of facts, the Administrative Department, that is, Tourism Department, vide its communication dated 24 August, 2021 has directed respondent CEO, SDA to place an indent with the District Collector/Collector Land Acquisition, Ganderbal, for acquiring the land in question so that necessary acquisition proceedings are initiated for utilization of the land in question for official purposes.
Justice Dhar noted that from the above facts the direction of the Writ Court which has attained finality is clear, inasmuch as respondents were directed either to demolish the structures raised on the land in question or to estimate the cost of structures so raised by them so that the petitioner pays the estimated cost of structures, meaning thereby that the respondents as per the judgment of the Writ Court are duty bound to withdraw themselves from the land in question.
It was recorded that the he respondents have exhausted all remedies against the judgment of the Writ Court without any success.
The court noted that the petitioner is running from pillar to post but he is not getting the fruits of the judgment which he has earned. “In view of what has been stated, a show cause notice be issued to the respondents asking them to show cause as to why rule should not be framed against them and why they should not be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,” the court said and directed.