Page No.# 1/3
GAHC040001112024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/3/2024
Mapikam Tega
S/o Jingling Tega, Tegamma village, Chaglogam, PO Hayuliang, PS Khupa, Anjaw
District, AP
VERSUS
Talo Jerang
Deputy Commissioner, Hawai, Anjaw District, AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Tony Pertin
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 31.01.2024
Shri T. Pertin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who by
means of this petition has alleged wilful disobedience and non-
compliance of the Order dated 03.06.2021, passed in the original
writ petition, WP(C) 161 (AP)/2021.
Page No.# 2/3
It is submitted that the said writ petition was closed vide the
2.
aforesaid order by directing the petitioner to submit fresh
representation which was required to be disposed of by the Deputy
Commissioner, Anjaw District.
As the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner had
3.
earlier filed a contempt case No. 09 (AP)/2022 in which the
respondent have filed an additional affidavit, wherein the following
statements were given;
“2. That in compliance of the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2021
passed in WP(C) No.161(A)/2021. The area was verified by the
Additional Deputy Commissioner and accordingly the report was
submitted on 18.04.2022. The verification was made in presence of Shri
th
Mapikam Tega and Anul Tega. As per the verification conducted on 12
th
and 13 April’2022 the properties are found to be belong to 13 persons.
Accordingly, vide order dated 20.04.2022 it has been decided that the
petitioner would be entitled for the compensation as per the verification
dated 18.04.2022. However, since the compensation and connected issue
for the entire stretch area need to be collectively disposed off. Therefore,
the compensation shall be released along with the others after all the
necessary formalities including the government approval have been
taken.”
Consequently, an order has been passed on 22.12.2023,
4.
which has been annexed as an Annexure-3. It is the contention of
Page No.# 3/3
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed on
22.12.2023, was not taken into consideration fresh survey report,
and therefore, the order is not in sync with the undertaken given on
affidavit.
. This Court has perused the communication dated 22.12.2023.
5
In the opinion of this Court, the communication has taken into
account the earlier litigation and the order passed by this Court
giving a direction for deposit of certain amount in the account of the
beneficiaries. Though the correctness and validity of the order can
be questioned which has to be done in an appropriate proceeding,
prima facie, the ingredients to constitute contempt do not appear to
be present.
In view of the above, the instant petition with allegation of
6.
contempt is closed. At this stage, this Court has been informed that
a separate writ petition has already been filed challenging the
validity of the said communication. The said writ petition may be
decided on its own merit.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant