Bhagwan Ramrao Zungure And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 499 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10109 OF 2018 1.

Bhagwan S/o Ramrao Zungure Age 76 years, Occu.Agril 2.

Santosh S/o Vithalrao Zungure Age 42 years, Occu.Agril 3.

Ranubai W/o Janardhan Waghmare Age 80 years, Occu. Agril Vithal S/o Bhaurao Thosar Age 75 years, Occu.Agril All R/o Ukhanda (Pitti), Tq.Patoda,Dist. Beed.

..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2.

Mr Asthik Kumar Pandey Age 30 years, Occu.Govt.Service Collector Beed.

3.

Mrs. Namrata Chate Age 29 years, Ocu.Govt.Service, Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) and S.D.O. Patoda, Dist.Beed

( 2 ) The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department Barshi Naka Road, Tq.and District-Beed.

..RESPONDENTS Mr C. K. Shinde, Advocate for petitioners;

Mr S. D. Ghayal, A.G.P. for respondents/State CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATED :

25th JULY, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader appearing for Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) and S.D.O., Patoda, Dist. Beed.

2.

Perused the order of this Court, dated 14th December, 2018, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10109 of 2018. By the said order, respondent No.3 - Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patoda, District Beed, was directed to decide two applications of the petitioners, dated 1st January, 2015 and 31st May, 2006,

( 3 ) within a stipulated period of three months. The grievance of the petitioner is of non-compliance of the order. 3.

If statements made in the petition memo are perused, it reveals that the petitioners themselves admit that the hearing of the parties was undertaken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The notices were issued to the petitioners and in response to the notices, the petitioners submitted their say to the authorities by engaging a Counsel. It is stated in para-5 of the petition that after submission of the say to the authorities, the petitioners were unable to know further progress in the matter and they reasonably believed that the claim is pending before respondent No.3.

Considering the aforesaid facts i.e. statements made on behalf of the petitioners in the petition, we are of the opinion that petition itself can be disposed of with direction to respondent No.3 and accordingly, respondent

( 4 ) No.3 is directed to take a decision on the aforesaid applications of the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today. The decision be informed to the petitioners within a period of one week thereafter. The petition is accordingly disposed of with above referred directions.

Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned A.G.P.

Learned A.G.P. to communicate this order to respondent No.3.

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.] sjk