Dismissed

Sadashiv Waman Ware and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Nov 2014CP/47/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the contempt petition holding that no case for contempt was made out as the compensation liability was accepted but the amount was not quantified at the time the impugned order was passed. Directions were issued to ensure payment within two months upon examination of quantified documents.

What did the court decide?

Examination of Exhibit "X" ordered; payment of compensation and interest to petitioners directed within two months; Contempt Petition disposed of with no costs.

Sadashiv Waman Ware and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

G.A.Ghule [P.A.]

¶2

1/3

¶3

cp 47.13 in cp 282.12 in wp 1910.10.sxw

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶5

Contempt Petition No.47 Of 2013. In Contempt Petition No.282 Of 2012. In Writ Petition No.1910 Of 2010.

¶6

Sadashiv w/o Waman Ware & Ors. :: Petitioners.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: Respondents.

¶9

Appearance =>

¶10

Mr. S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra.

¶12

Mr. P.P. Dama, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶13

CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & A.M. Badar, JJ. DATE : 14^th November, 2014.

¶14

Per Court :-

¶15

Heard Mr. S.L. Bhapkar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. P.P. Dama, Advocate for Resp.No.4.

¶16

[2] The petitioners are challenging the order dated 28^th June, 2011 passed by this Court [ Coram : Smt. Nishita Mhatre and M.T. Joshi, JJ.]. By the said order passed in Writ Petition No.1910 Of 2010, direction to pay rental compensation within three months was issued. Compensation was

¶17

2/3 cp 47.13 in cp 282.12 in wp 1910.10.sxw

¶18

directed to be disbursed in accordance with the order dated 11^th November, 2009.

¶19

[3] During hearing, we find that, order dated 11/11/2009 passed by the Spl.L.A.O. No.2, Beed in LAQ/SR/19/92 does not quantify the amount of rental compensation. It is seen that liability to pay the rental compensation and entitlement of the petitioners to receive it for period from 6^th August, 1985 till 17^th August, 1993 is accepted. However, as actual amount is not computed, the amount cannot be disbursed.

¶20

[4] Mr. Sanay Bhapkar, learned counsel has points out communication tk-dz- ftich@yikfo@Hkqlaiknu 1@1383@2014 dated 15^th July, 2014 sent by Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Z.P., Beed to the office of the Spl.Land Acquisition Officer and Dy.Collector, E.G.S., Beed. He submits that, Respondent No.4 who has to shoulder the burden of compensation has actually quantified the amount also. Communication dated 15^th July, 2014 and accompanying chart showing entitlement of each claimants is taken on record and marked as Exhibit - “X”.

¶21

[5] Facts above show that amount could not have been disbursed in obedience to the order of this court dated 02/08/11 before 15/07/14 as compensation is quantified on that date. In this situation, no case for taking cognizance of contempt is made out.

¶22

[6] Considering the fact that petitioners are fighting for rental compensation for about 20 years, we direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to examine the document at Exhibit -X within further period of two months. If amount as stipulated therein or any other sum is found payable to the petitioners, same shall be disbursed to them within further period of two

¶23

3/3 cp 47.13 in cp 282.12 in wp 1910.10.sxw

¶24

months. Interest till date of payment shall also made over to them. Acceptance of such amount by the petitioners shall not preclude them from challenging the correctness of the exercise undertaken. With these directions, Contempt Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Sadashiv Waman Ware and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv Waman Ware and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishanrao Shripatrao Hiwale and Ors. Vs State of Mah. and Ors.

Anil Umrao Gote Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwan Bhanudas Bhojane Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satyawan Kishanrao Gokule and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gopal Petanna Gondge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohan Gopalrao Gondge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others