Laxman Budhamal Angnani v. Shri. Manohar Kadu, Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi, Amravati
17-CP-113-17 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.113 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4518 OF 2016 Laxman Budhamal Angnani, Pimpalpura, Morshi, Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati -vsManohar Kadu, Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi, Dist. Amravati and ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'
s orders Court'
s or Judge'
s Orders.
or directions and Registrar'
s orders.
Shri S. G. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND N. B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ. DATE : December 01, 2020 The grievance of the petitioner is that the directions issued in Writ Petition No.4518/2016 have not been complied with by the respondents. By the said order dated 12/01/2017 this Court had directed the respondents to take a decision on the proposal that was forwarded to the State Government for allotment of alternate land to the petitioner. Pursuant to the notice issued the respondent No.1 has filed affidavit dated 17/07/2019 through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. In paragraph 13 it has been stated that the proposal in that regard was received from the Collector, Amravati and thereafter a decision was taken that as Survey No.26 admeasuring 225 sq. ft which land was in possession of the petitioner was reserved for garden as per Reservation No.8, the said proposal could not be approved for conversion of the land for commercial use. By virtue of this decision dated 22/11/2018 expressing inability to convert the land for
17-CP-113-17 2/2 commercial use, the proposal forwarded to the respondent No.1 stands adjudicated. In view thereof the directions issued for taking a decision on the proposal has been complied with. It is therefore not necessary to keep the present proceedings pending. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid decision he is free to take appropriate steps in that regard.
JUDGE JUDGE Asmita