← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/636/2014disposed off

Bhima Dagdu Kalawde (Dec) Through His Legal Heirs v. Mr. Vikas Deshmukh, Pune Collector And ORS

2015-02-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice C.V. Bhadang,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Vasanti A. Naik2 pages

39.CP636_2014.doc Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 636 OF 2014 Bhima Dagdu Kalawde (Deceased) through his LRs Ankush Bhima Kalawade & Ors.

... Petitioners vs.

Vikas Deshmukh & Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. Gaurav Potnis i/b. Ms. Pallavi Potnis, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the respondents.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

DATE : 18th February, 2015.

P.C.

Heard.

By this Petition, the petitioners seek action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order, dated 6th March, 2013 in Writ Petition filed by the petitioners.

It is stated that despite the direction to the District Resettlement Officer to examine the case of the petitioners and ascertain whether the petitioners are entitled to allotment of land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, the respondents have not decided the matter.

39.CP636_2014.doc Ms. Bhende, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states, on instructions, that the case of the petitioners was considered and by an order dated 11th September, 2014, the claim of the petitioners for allotment of an alternate land was rejected. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed a copy of the order dated 11th September, 2014 on record.

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the District Resettlement Officer, Pune has taken a decision in the matter of the petitioners and an order dated 11th September, 2014 was passed. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have other remedies. However, no action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act can be initiated against the respondents merely because the order rejects the claim of the petitioners.

For the reasons aforesaid, we dispose of the Contempt Petition, with no order as to costs.

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)