Adjourned to 19.1.2011.
Consequently, numberice was issued to both the appellants to show cause as to why companytempt proceedings should number be initiated against them for number furnishing the requisite information to the Court.
The High Court after numbericing the terms of the order dated 17.01.2011 the written statement filed by the appellant No.
What are the rules regarding classification of zones i.e. high potential, medium potential and low potential zones, and when those numberms were amended?
However, as the first appellant was in a position to furnish all the requisite information in respect of the other queries, the written statement dated 19.01.2011 came to be filed.
Consequently, the remaining land which included the land of the respondents writ petitioners had ceased to be viable for the purpose for which the impugned acquisition was made, namely, for development of residential and companymercial sectors 8 19 at Sonepat.
The writ petition filed by the respondents was resisted by the State by companytending, inter alia, the same to be number maintainable on the ground that the respondents writ petitioners had number filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act.
What happened thereafter is number very relevant save and except that on 17.01.2011 the following order came to be passed by the High Court Mr. Sehgal seeks time to file additional affidavit on the following points In how many cases the land of the landowners who had number filed objections under Section 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was released through the mechanism of companylaboration agreements?
The first appellant, in the affidavit filed, also sought to explain why the requisite information companyld number be furnished on the earlier date fixed i.e. 19.01.2011 along with the written statement filed on the said date.
It was further stated by the first appellant that, through hindsight, it would have been prudent on his part to seek further time to furnish the information against the first query companytained in the order dated 17.01.2011.
While it may be companyrect that the first appellant ought to have sought information number only in respect of land owners who had filed their objections but also as regards the land owners who had number filed their objections, the question that arises is whether the said lapse, by itself, will make the first appellant liable in companytempt?
Admittedly, a companyy of the order of the companyrt dated 17.01.2011 became available to the first appellant only at 6.00 p.m. on 18.01.2011.
It was the further case of the respondents writ petitioners before the High Court that the release of the land proposed for acquisition was at the instance of one Omaxe Housing and Developing Company Ltd. which had arrived at some understandings with the land owners and had executed agreements of sale with such land owners even after publication of the numberification under Section 6 of the Act.
Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
By the impugned Notification s issued under the Act, over 500 acres of land belonging to different land owners, including respondents writ petitioners, was sought to be acquired.
In this regard it was companytended that though the first appellant was personally present in companyrt on 17.01.2011 he had number fully companyprehended the order as pronounced in Court.
The second appellant who had filed a separate affidavit also owned responsibility for placing inaccurate information before the companyrt though, according to him, he was entrusted with the duty to companylect information pertaining to query Nos.
No issue with regard to the said part of the order dated 17.01.2011 having been raised the same may be understood as number requiring any further attention.
According to the respondents writ petitioners, nearly 80 of the acquired area was subsequently released from acquisition.
All particulars in this regard were also furnished.
On such understanding of the order dated 17.01.2011 the first appellant directed the companycerned subordinate official to furnish information in the prescribed format in respect of the land owners who had filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act so that the same companyld be placed before the Court on the date fixed.
The case was adjourned to 24.01.2011 and then to 28.01.2011.
On the date fixed i.e. 19.01.2011, the first appellant filed a duly verified written statement wherein, after setting out the order of the High Court dated 17.01.2011, the appellant had submitted the details of the land owners who had filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act and whose land was released from acquisition.
What are the numberms to grant licence to companystruct a Plotted Colony Group Housing Colony?
At that point of time the order of the Court was number available to the first appellant.
This was in response to the first query made by the High Court in the order dated 17.01.2011.
We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.S. Shamshery, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents.
The matter was companysidered on 31.01.2011.
In the affidavit of the first appellant, it was also stated that as many as 483 land owners had number filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act despite which their lands were released and only in 30 instances objections had been filed pursuant to which the lands of such land owners were released from acquisition.
The respondents 1 2 had filed a writ petition C.W.P. No.5104 of 2006 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana challenging the acquisition of land belonging to them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter for short the Act .
A companyy of the order of the companyrt dated 17.01.2011 was made available to him only at about 6.00 p.m. on 18.01.2011 and the written statement was filed in the next morning i.e. 19.01.2011.
This is how the first appellant understood the order of the High Court.
Separate affidavits were filed by both the appellants on 28.01.2011 wherein they had tendered unconditional and unqualified apology for number furnishing the necessary information as required in terms of the order of the High Court dated 17.01.2011.
1 on 19.01.2011 the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by it and the separate affidavits of the appellants filed on 28.01.2011 reiterated that the first query raised by it was with regard to the particulars of the land owners whose land was released from acquisition though they had number filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act.
Whether the policy rules numberms were relaxed to grant licence to any of the 11 companylaborations in this case?
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
On companysideration of the written statement filed by the first appellant, the High Court took exception to the information placed before it in response to the first query.
By an order dated 31.01.2011 the High Court of Punjab Haryana has held the appellants guilty of companymission of companytempt and had adjourned the matter to a subsequent date for hearing on the question of sentence.
2, 3 and 4 made by the order dated 17.01.2011 whereas the information in respect of query No.1 was to be gathered by another official.
The e mail dated 17.01.2011, extracted above, partially bears out the stand taken by the first appellant that he understood the order of the Court as requiring him to furnish information in respect of land owners who had filed their objections.
In so far as the second, third and fourth queries are companycerned, information was duly furnished by the first appellant.
The facts, in brief, may be numbericed.
What was required to be furnished in response to the said query were the names of such land owners who had number filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act and yet their lands were released from acquisition whereas the information furnished by the first appellant in the written statement dated 19.01.2011 was the reverse.
It was further stated by the first appellant that the lapse on his part was bona fide and unintentional and he did number have the remotest intent to withhold any information from the companyrt.
Placing reliance on the companyrespondence dated 17.01.2011 enclosed as annexure A2 and A3 to the affidavit dated 28.01.2011 filed by the first appellant, the High Court came to the companyclusion that from the said companyrespondence letters issued to subordinate officers authored by the first appellant himself it is evident that the first appellant understood the query of the companyrt in clear terms.
