SRINAGAR, Nov 20: The High Court has sought personal appearance of top officials to explain as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for not complying with the court directions.
Justice Sanjay Dhar has sought personal appearance of Commissioner/Secretary School Education Department and Deputy Commissioner Budgam in case assessment with regard to rental compensation in lieu of occupation of property of the petitioner is not placed before the court by next date of hearing.
It was way back in the year 2015, a direction was issued to the officials to consider and appoint son of Mohammad Abdullah Wani on any Class-IV post or to assess and pay rental compensation to him for use and occupation of their landed property from the date the same has been taken over from them till such time the acquisition proceedings are initiated for acquiring the land.
For not complying with either of the directions, the petitioner filed the contempt proceedings in 2019 and the court today in these proceedings directed for placing on record assessment order regarding rental compensation by next date of hearing.
Court has clarified in case the directions are not complied then the Commissioner/Secretary to Government School Education Department as well as Deputy Commissioner, Budgam shall appear in person before this Court and explain as to why the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act may not be initiated against them.
Court on perusal of the ‘statement of facts’ filed by the respondents said, though acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the respondent-contemnors but till date the compensation for use and occupation of the land till the acquisition proceedings have been initiated has not been assessed.
“There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have taken any step in this behalf. However, the counsel for the respondents has submitted that an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs has been paid to the petitioner on account of rental compensation without actually assessing the rental compensation.
Court said the fact of the matter remains that the rental compensation for use and occupation of the property in question has not been assessed by the respondents as a result of which the direction in this regard has remained unimplemented even after a lapse of more than eight years.