IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA.
C.P No. D-2046 of 2011
Present :
Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar,
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,
Mr. Imdad Ali Mashori, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General.
Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Date of hearing 30-09-2020
Date of decision 30-09-2020
O R D E R
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, J. This contempt application has been filed in respect of order dated 19.08.2014, whereby this petition was disposed of. The said order reads as under: -
“All the learned counsel are agreed that this petition could be disposed of by directing that if at all land of the petitioner is acquired and award is passed the amount in terms thereof be paid to the owners including the petitioner, if he is entitled, in accordance with law. The petitioner however does not dispute the quantum as calculated by the Officer concerned while passing the award. The petition in terms thereof stands disposed of.”
2. We have, at the very outset, confronted learned counsel for the petitioners as to what contempt could be alleged to have been committed in view of the above order; but the learned counsel is not in position to satisfy our query. He has, however, argued that after passing of this order certain developments took place and the award has not been satisfied as the respondents have not finalized the matter as directed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Insofar as the aforesaid order is concerned, in our considered view, there is nothing contained therein of which any contempt could be alleged to have been committed for the reason that neither the court has adjudicated the matter; nor has decided any controversy. What the court has done is a mere observation to the effect that if at all land of the petitioners is acquired and if any award is passed, the amount thereof be paid to the owners including the petitioners, if they areentitled in accordance with law, as apparently the petitionerswere not disputing the quantum of compensation. When notice was ordered on this contempt application, response has been filed wherein it is stated that the amount of the award already stands paid vide cheque No.35203246, dated 06.11.2004 to the attorney of the petitioner, whereas there appears to be some dispute between attorney and the petitioner in respect of receiving the said amount. It has been further stated that the original award was passed in the year 1995, whereas, subsequently, the petitioners have managed another award in the year 2004 in connivance with some officials against which necessary proceedings have been initiated. It has been further stated when this petition was disposed of, entire record was not available including the fact that the land has already been acquired and compensation was also paid.
5. In view of such position, we are of the considered opinion that firstly the order passed by this Court has not adjudicated the matter in any manner, which may entail initiation of contempt proceedings; and secondly, there appears to be disputed facts involved in the matter, including but not limited to the fact that compensation stands paid which is now being claimed once again; hence the contempt application being mis-conceived was dismissed by us by means of a short order dated 30.09.2020 and these are the reasonsthereof.
Judge
Judge