Chennai: Pointing out that the government authorities are not sensitive to the court orders, the Madras high court has ordered issuance of notice to B. Anbu Selvan, the collector of Madras, land acquisition, requiring his personal appearance before the court on March 5, 2018, in connection with a contempt of court case.
“Prima facie there is a violation of the court’s order. The government authorities are not sensitive to the court orders and this case is a classic example”, said Justice N. Kirubakaran while ordering notice of appearance to Anbu Selvan.
The judge posted to March 5, further hearing on the contempt petition filed by T.N. Ramasamy, a hotelier, which sought to punish the collector for willful disobedience of the order passed by the court in his appeal, dated July 31, 2017.
The judge said the appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award passed by the special tahsildar, fixing the compensation of '2.33 lakh for the land acquired from him to an extent of 487 sq.ft in Mylapore, in 1986 for the purpose of alignment of Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS). The property was demolished and handed over to the land acquisition officer on December 2, 1993. Thereafter the land acquisition officer passed a revised award, deleting the compensation awarded towards the value of the building. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an application and the same was dismissed by the reference court. Against which, the appeal was filed and this court re-determined the value of the property at '322 being the guideline value as on December 2, 1993, the date on which possession was handed over to the authorities, and determined the total compensation at '35.44 lakh, the judge added.
The judge said since the property was acquired in the year 1986 and possession was taken in the year 1993, for the past 30 years, the petitioner was not able to see the colour of the coin for the property acquired from him, a sum of '1 lakh was awarded as costs and the entire amount with costs was to be paid within 12 weeks. A perusal of the records would show that the time to pay the amount expired in December 2017. Despite sending notices, since the order has not been complied with, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.
