Dynacraft Machine Company Limited v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr.The Minister And ORS.

CRP 1 22-CP-7-2018 .doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 07 OF 2018 Dynacraft Machine Company Ltd., ...

Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. Sanket Mone a/w. Ms. Neha Joshi I/by Vidhi Partners for the petitioner.

Mr. Aakash Rebello, a/w. Ms. Suchita Uppal I/by M/s. Hariani & Co. for respondent No.4.

Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for State / Respondents No. 3 & 9. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.

DATE : 10th JUNE, 2019.

P.C.:- 1] The present contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have breached the order dated 9th May 2017 and in particular clause 3(i) of the said order. The said Order is further modified by an order dated 11th May 2017. Para No.2 of order dated 11th May 2017 reads as under :- In the order dated 9th May, 2017 in paragraph 3(i) the words "after taking the possession of land till 12th June, 2017" shall be replaced with "if possession of the land has been taken, till 19th June, 2017."

2] It is to be noted here that while passing Order dated 1/2

CRP 2 22-CP-7-2018 .doc 9th May 2017 the learned AGP, on instructions from Shri. Prabhakar Musale, City Survey Officer, Andheri, Mumbai had made a statement that, the possession of land in question was already taken after completing the measurements. This court thereafter directed that, the petition be listed on 19th June 2017 and in the meantime states-quo be maintained and the respondents be directed not to act further after taking possession of land till 12th June 2017. Said words, "after taking possession of land till 12th June 2017" have been replaced by the words "if possession of the land has been taken, till 19th June 2017" by an order dated 11th May 2017.

3] As a positive and assertive statement was made on 9th May 2017 by the respondent No.3 that the possession of disputed land has already been taken and in view thereof, I find that no contempt is committed by the respondents and present petition is wholly misconceived.

4] The petition is accordingly dismissed.

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) 2/2