Shantabai Wd/O Vithalrao Kopulwar (Dead) Through Lrs., Murlidhar S/O V. Kopulwar And Others v. Manukumar Shrivastava, Secretary Revenue Department, Mumbai And Others

1 cp39.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.39 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3707 OF 2004(D) (Smt. Shantabai wd/o Vithalrao Kopulwar (dead) through her L.Rs. Shri Murlidhar s/o Vithalrao Kopulwar and others ..vs.. Shri Manukumar Shrivastava, Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 20-06-2016 Heard Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri A.D. Sonak Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 5.

2.

The petitioners complain that the directions given by this Court in the judgment given in Writ Petition No.3707/2004 on 06-10-2009 directing the respondents to regularise the possession of the petitioners over the concerned plot by executing a lease-deed, sanad or patta in favour of the petitioners, have not been complied with.

3.

In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent No.1 has filed affidavit stating that the proposal in terms of the directions given by this Court was sent to the Government and the Government has approved the proposal and orders have been issued on

2 cp39.15 30-06-2015 for regularisation of the possession of the petitioners over the concerned plot.

4.

The learned Advocate for the petitioners has pointed out the copy of communication dated 22-09-2015 issued by the Deputy Collector (Revenue) to the petitioner No.1-a and has submitted that the respondents are claiming an amount of Rs.18,82,818/- for regularisation and this is not contemplated as per the judgment given by this Court.

5.

In my view, whether the demand made by the respondents for regularisation of possession of the petitioners over the concerned plot is proper or not and is as per the rules or not will have to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. The issue cannot be considered in contempt petition. Hence, keeping the issue open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings if taken up by the petitioners, the notice of contempt is discharged. No costs.

JUDGE adgokar