Disposed

Aabasaheb Dattatraya Deshmukh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Feb 2020CP/673/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition sought relief for delay in compensation distribution. The court accepted the respondent officer's apology for delay. Finding the award passed and compensation deposited by the acquiring body, the court disposed of the petition directing the officer to disburse the funds to claimants within three weeks. Quality is thin due to the order's brevity.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; direction issued to Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, to disburse received compensation to claimants within three weeks.

Aabasaheb Dattatraya Deshmukh and Others Vs the State of… — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

2-CP-673-19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.673 OF 2019

¶4

Aabasaheb Dattatraya Deshmukh and others

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.E.Shekade, Advocate for petitioners Mrs.P.V.Diggikar, AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.B.R.Surwase, Advocate for respondent no.4

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE

¶11

AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 04, 2020

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

In response to the notice issued vide order of

¶14

this Court dated 10.10.2019, affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.3 – Shri.Namdeo s/o. Dattatraya Tilekar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed. The same is taken on record.

¶15

It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that

¶16

in view of earlier order passed by this Court, steps were taken for passing the award and the award has been passed on 04.12.2019. A copy of the award has been annexed to the affidavit. It is further stated in the affidavit that as per the direction of this Court, the deponent has deducted earlier paid compensation amount from the new calculated amount and for remaining balance amount of Rs.84,25,576/-, a request was made to the acquiring body to deposit said amount as early as possible.

¶17

In the copy of the communication dated 04.12.2019, which has been annexed to the affidavit,

¶18

it is stated that as and when the amount of compensation will be received from the acquiring body, the deponent will deposit the same in this Court or directly in the account of the claimants.

¶19

In the affidavit-in-reply, respondent no.3 has tendered unconditional apology for the delay caused in compliance of the order of this Court.

¶20

3 2-CP-673-19

¶21

We accept the apology tendered by respondent

¶22

no.3. It can safely be said that respondent no.3 has complied with the order of this Court relating to his part.

¶23

Mr.Surwase, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 – acquiring body, places on record a copy of communication dated 21.01.2020, wherein it has been stated that as per the final award, the amount to the tune of Rs.94,36,890/- towards compensation, was fixed and by deducting the amount of Rs.17,77,275/which has already been paid to the claimants. It is stated that the remaining amount to the tune of Rs.76,59,615/- has been submitted by cheque No.643371 dated 22.01.2020, to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition, Beed. There is also reference to the names of the land owners with their entitlement.

¶24

In view of the above, the Contempt Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 –

¶25

4 2-CP-673-19

¶26

Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, to disburse the amount received from respondent no.4 – acquiring body, to the petitioners/claimants, at the earliest and not

¶27

later than three weeks from today.

¶28

The above direction will meet the ends of justice and the grievance raised in the present Contempt Petition would no more survive. The Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

kbp

Aabasaheb Dattatraya Deshmukh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aabasaheb Dattatraya Deshmukh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Vishwanath Rajaram Shahane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nivrutti Laxman Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Damodhar More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Ramdas Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pushpa Shivaji Bhosale Vs Prakash Saundaji Patil District Supply Offier Beed

Archana Gopichand Meshram Vs Nivedita Ved Singhal through Secretary Mumbai