Bombay High CourtCP/418/2019disposed offdismissed for default

Bhausaheb Mahadu Gaikwad And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2019-09-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

{1} cp41819.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.418 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO12234 OF 2017 Bhausaheb s/o Mahadu Gaikwad & others Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharahtra & others Respondents Mr.Sandeep N. Lute, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Patil, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr.D.B.Pawar-Pathrekar, advocate for Respondents No.4 and 5. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATE :18th September, 2019 PER COURT:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

Simple notice was issued to Respondents No.3 and 4 by order dated July 05, 2019.

The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, placed on record a copy of the proposal dated 28.08.2019 and submits that though there is some delay in submitting the proposal, the proposal is now submitted to the office of the District Collector, Aurangabad. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the delay caused in submitting the proposal is due to technical and administrative difficulties and an unconditional apology is tendered for the same.

{2} cp41819.odt The Division Bench, in the order dated 16.04.2018, passed in W.P. No.12234 of 2017, directed Respondent-Zilla Parishad to submit the proposal within a period of six months from the date of the order. It was also observed that the acquisition proceedings be completed within the period stipulated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The learned AGP submits that as the proposal is now submitted to the office of the Collector, Aurangabad, the same would be taken to its logical end as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. The purpose of approaching this Court by way of present contempt petition is, thus, duly served. Nothing survives for consideration in the Contempt Petition.

Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. AVINASH G. GHAROTE PRASANNA B. VARALE JUDGE JUDGE adb/