Disposed

Bibhishan Rokhade Shere and Another v. Deepa Mudhol Mundhe the Collector Osmanabad and Another

Bombay HC10 Jan 2020CP/285/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Contempt Petition challenging alleged non-compliance with a previous order directing initiation of land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act was disposed of. The court accepted the respondent's affidavit explaining procedural delays due to staff transfers and accepted the unconditional apology.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bibhishan Rokhade Shere and Another Vs Deepa Mudhol Mundhe… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 933-CP-285-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8652 OF 2016

¶4

Bibhishan Rokhade Shere and Anr.

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Deepa Mudhol – Mundhe, The Collector, Osmanabad and Anr.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Mr M.K. Jadhav, Advocate, holding for Mr A.B. More, Advocate for Petitioner Mr S.G. Sangle, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 10^th JANUARY, 2020

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

On the grievance that the order of this Court is not complied with, the notice was issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by order dated 26.08.2019. It may not be out of place to state here that the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 04.10.2017 in Writ Petition No. 8652 of 2016 directed the respondents to initiate the acquisition proceedings afresh under the Act of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a stipulated period and complied with the same within a stipulated period prescribed under the Act of 2013.

¶13

2 933-CP-285-2019

¶14

In response to the notice, an afdavit-in-reply is fled on behalf of respondent No. 1 i.e. Collector, Osmanabad – Deepa Vishwas Mudhol – Mundhe. It is stated in the afdavit-in-reply that the steps are taken for initiation of the acquisition proceedings and it is stated in para No. 9 that the preliminary notifcation under section 11 of the Act, 2013 was published on 09.05.2018. There is an explanation provided for the delay in compliance of the order of this Court. The delay is mainly attributed to the procedural difculties such as, transfer of some subordinate ofcers namely, Sub Divisional Ofcer. As such, the subordinate ofcer, who is proceeded on leave causing delay in initiation of the proceedings. It is also stated in the afdavit-inreply that the deponent tenders her unconditional apology for the delay and inconvenience caused to this Court.

¶15

Considering this statement referred above made in the afdavit-in-reply, it can safely be said that the order of this Court is now duly complied with though there is delay and delay is explained with justifable reasons. Accordingly, grievance raised in the petition no more survives.

¶16

The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

[ ANIL S. KILOR ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

mta

Bibhishan Rokhade Shere and Another v. Deepa Mudhol Mundhe the Collector Osmanabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bibhishan Rokhade Shere and Another v. Deepa Mudhol Mundhe the Collector Osmanabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Ashokrao Magar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Navnath Ashok Shirke Vs the Union of India and Others

Shaikh Zubairuddin Sk Alimuddin Vs Nandkumar Secretary the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Madanlal Kabra Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sapana Suryakant Wale Vs a S Ukirde

Sanjay Madanlal Kabra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another