HC seeks explanation from then Div Com for non-compliance of orders

Jammu: Taking serious note over non- implementation of court orders, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court today sought explanation from then Divisional Commisisoner Jammu Sanjeev Verma to explain as to why he should not be punished for contempt of the orders passed by this Court.

This signficiant order has been passed Justice Dhiraj singh Thakur in a contempt petition filed by Sheela Devi & other.

Advocate Joyti Sarup appearing for the petitioners submitted that Vide judgement and order dated 18.12.2017, this Court had allowed the writ petition by directing the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu to initiate steps for formal acquisition of the land in question for purposes of payment of compensation thereof.

Admittedly, the land of the petitioners was utilized for constructing the Community Hall, even when the judgment and order aforementioned was passed in the year 2017, not steps for acquisition were taken.

Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur after hearing Adv Joyti Sarup appearing for the petitioner whereas Sr. AAG SS Nanda appearing for the respondent observed that Statement of facts has been filed on 30.12.2020, by Mr. Sanjeev Verma, the then Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, in which it has been stated that the claim of the petitioners for compensation in lieu of land in question is not sustainable, as the land in question had been donated by the petitioners for the welfare of the village. Clearly, the then Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, intentionally defied the judgement and order passed by this Court, by filing the aforesaid response in the aforementioned contempt petition. Paragraph 6 of the said compliance is reproduced hereunder that as far as the claim of the petitioners for compensation in lieu of land donated by them for construction of community hall in Panchayat Halqa, Sangrampur it is not sustainable as it is an established practice that the Rural Development Department does not acquire the land for construction of its assets but does the same on the land donated by the individuals of the Panchayat concerned for the welfare of the village, which has been the same in the instant case."

Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur observed that on the face of it, the then Divisional Commissioner, Jammu has clearly attempted to intentionally defy the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017, for which appropriate action needs to be taken. Issue notice to the said officer to explain as to why he should not be punished for contempt of the orders passed by this Court.

Court on the verbal request of Adv Joyti Sarup for the petitioners, Dr. Raghav Langer, Division is impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the instant contempt petition. He is directed to comply with the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 in its letter and spirit. He shall ensure that steps are taken for the implementation of the aforementioned judgment and order passed by this Court, before the next date of hearing, issue notice to newly respondent. JNF