Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Nov 1: The High Court today issued a show cause notice to higher officials in the Government to explain why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for floating the final judgment of the court.
Justice Sanjay Dhar directed the Registry to issue show cause notice to the Chief Executive Officer Sonamarg Development Authority and Commissioner / Secretary Tourism and Deputy Commissioner Ganderbal explaining from them as to why rule under contempt proceedings should not be framed against them and why they not be proceeded against in accordance with the provision of contempt proceedings.
Petitioner-Sheikh Farooq Ahmad in the contempt proceedings alleged non-compliance of judgment passed way back in 2012 whereby these officials were directed to take immediate steps for demolishing the structure raised on the land situated at Sonamarg or estimate the cost of the structures so raised, 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 judgment was challenged by then Government before the Division Bench by filing an Appeal which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench in 2014. Thereafter authorities preferred Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench verdict which also came to be dismissed in 2014 itself and the basic judgment of the Writ Court has attained finality.
“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”, Justice Dhar recorded.
The Court has made it clear that the respondents have exhausted all remedies against the judgment of the Writ Court without any success. “The Special Leave Petition was dismissed way back in the year 2014 and more than seven years have elapsed since then. The petitioner is running from pillar to post but he is not getting the fruits of the judgment which he has earned”, Justice Dhar said.
The reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner Ganderbal and CEO Sonamarg reveals that pursuant to the judgment of the Writ Court, the assessment of valuation of structures raised on the land in question was made and as per the valuation report dated 25.03.2013, the value of the structures was assessed at Rs.39,58,234.
The petitioner offered to pay the aforesaid amount to the CEO but before receiving it, the matter was taken up with the Secretary to Government, Tourism and Culture Department, for taking necessary directions. The statement of facts further revealed that vide order dated 17.06.2020, a Committee was constituted by the Government to ascertain the claim of the petitioner and determine the specific location of the petitioner’s land by reference to all valid documents as per law.
Report dated 20.07.2020 is stated to have been submitted by the Committee to the Government and 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 DC Ganderbal has, in her compliance report, submitted that she has implemented the order of the Court. While as the reply filed by CEO 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 17.08.2021.
According to the reply, the Tourism Department, vide its communication dated 24.08.2021 has directed the CEO 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.
The respondents, it seems, the Court added, 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”, read the order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
