Disposed¶67

Sonaba Gangaram Khaladkar v. Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

Bombay HC3 Jan 2025CP/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petitions; Bombay High Court; neutral citation 2025:BHC-AS:177-DB; 3 January 2025; Sub-Divisional Officer Baramati; Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project; land acquisition compensation; non-declaration of award; breach of order dated 1 March 2019 in Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017; cancellation of Right and Left canals; Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal resolution 19.06.2017; Government Resolution 28.08.2023; lands never possessed by State; 7/12 entries District Resettlement Officer Pune; no contempt initiated; disposed with liberty; M. S. Sonak J; Jitendra Jain J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioners to take such steps as they may be advised, in case they have any grievances regards the attempted acquisition; no contempt proceedings initiated against the Respondents. ¶67

Sonaba Gangaram Khaladkar vs Sub Divisional Officer Baramati — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the Petitioners to take such steps as they may be advised, in case they have any grievances regards the attempted acquisition; no contempt proceedings initiated against the Respondents.

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondents committed contempt of this Court's order dated 1 March 2019, which directed them to complete acquisition proceedings, determine compensation, declare the award and pay compensation within a year from 1 March 2019. +1 more

¶53

Court's answer

The Court declined to initiate any contempt proceedings against the Respondents for the alleged breach of its order dated 1 March 2019.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

As the Respondents are no longer interested in the acquisition, there can be no compulsion upon them to proceed with the acquisition and make any award determining compensation.

¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. (per M. S. Sonak J), 3 January 2025. Fifteen connected contempt petitions (CP Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 of 2024) by landowners against the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati, alleging breach of this Court's order dated 1 March 2019 in Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017 directing completion of acquisition proceedings, determination of compensation, declaration of award and payment within a year. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Vaibhav Navadkar) swore that the Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal resolved on 19.06.2017 to cancel both Right and Left canals of the Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project, approved by Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023; that the Petitioners' lands were never taken into possession and remain with them; that 7/12 entries in favour of the District Resettlement Officer, Pune will be removed by due process; and that the State no longer requires the lands. Held: the Respondents being no longer interested in the acquisition, no compulsion lies on them to proceed with the acquisition or make a compensation award; contempt proceedings declined. Petitions disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to take steps as advised on grievances regarding the attempted acquisition.

¶1

11-CP.5.2024.docx

¶2

2025:BHC-AS:177-DB

¶3

Sayyed

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2024

¶7

Shripati Bhiva Thakar (since deceased through his legal heirs) 1A. Prabhu Shripati Thakar (since deceased through his legal heirs) 1A. (i) Sanjay Prabhu Thakar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.10 OF 2024 Sunil Kisan Gardare ...Petitioner Versus The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.11 OF 2024 Sonaba Gangaram Khaladkar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.59 OF 2024 Srirang Devram Gadadare & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.63 OF 2024

¶11

Parvatibai Dnyanoba Lavange (since deceased through legal heirs) Prasad Dnyanoba Lave & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents

Page 1 of 6

Sayyed

11-CP.5.2024.docx

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.65 OF 2024
Jaysingh Kisan Gardare ...Petitioner Versus
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2024
Shivaji Baban Pingle & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.8 OF 2024
Vaman Bala Bande & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.7 OF 2024
Baban Bahiru Londhe ...Petitioner Versus
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.60 OF 2024
Kaluram Gujaba Gaddare & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.62 OF 2024

¶16

Rajaram Balu Kullal

¶17

(since deceased through legal heirs)

Page 2 of 6

Sayyed

11-CP.5.2024.docx

1A. Dadasaheb Rajaram Kullal & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus

¶22

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents

¶23

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.67 OF 2024

¶24

Dagadu Maruti Gaikwad (since deceased through legal heirs) Balkrushan Dagadu Gaikwad & Anr. ...Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents

¶27

WITH

¶28

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.64 OF 2024

¶29

Paraji Tulashiram Kullal (since deceased through his legal heirs) 1A. Appa Paraji Kullal & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶30

Versus

¶31

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents

¶32

WITH

¶33

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.66 OF 2024

¶34

Kerba Kondiba Pingale (since deceased through legal heirs) 1A. Laxman Kerba Pingale & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents

¶35

WITH

¶36

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.61 OF 2024

¶37

Mahadeo Nama Pangarkar (since deceased through legal heirs) 1A. Gulab Nama Pangarkar & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶38

Versus

¶39

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati & Ors. ...Respondents

¶40

Page 3 of 6

¶41

Sayyed 11-CP.5.2024.docx

¶42

Mr. Rameshwar Gite a/w Mr. Hiten Raut for Petitioner/s in all petitions. Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. a/w Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for RespondentState in CP/5/2024 and CP/65/2024.

¶43

Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. a/w Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State in CP/10/2024 and CP/9/2024.

¶44

Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. a/w Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for RespondentState in CP/11/2024, CP/8/2024 and CP/60/2024.

¶45

Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. a/w Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP for RespondentState in CP/59/2024, CP/7/2024 and CP/62/2024.

¶46

Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. a/w Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for RespondentState in CP/63/2024, CP/67/2024, CP/64/2024, CP/66/2024 and CP/61/2024.

¶47

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

¶48

DATED : 3 January 2025

¶49

PC.:- (Per M. S. Sonak J)

¶50

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶51

The learned counsel for the parties agree that these contempt petitions can be disposed of by a common order.

¶52

The Petitioners had alleged contempt of our order dated 1 March 2019. By our order dated 1 March 2019, the Respondents were directed to complete acquisition proceedings in respect of determination of amount of compensation and declare award and pay compensation so determined under the award within a year from 1 March 2019.

¶53

Because no award was made within a year, the Petitioners instituted these contempt petitions alleging breach of our above referred directions.

¶54

In all these petitions, Mr. Vaibhav Navadkar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division Baramati has filed an affidavit. Paragraphs 7 to 12 of this affidavit are relevant and the same are transcribed below for the convenience of reference :-

¶55

Page 4 of 6

¶56

Sayyed 11-CP.5.2024.docx

¶57

“7. I say that when the work of canal in respect of the Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project was going on, 148.089 MLD (million liters per day) water was reserved for irrigation purpose out of the total water use of 188.611 MLD. So also, out of the total benefit zone of 23110 Hector, area of 19645 Hector was excluded from the benefitted zone as per demand of the beneficiaries. I say that thereafter, the Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal in its 95th meeting of Board of Directors dated 19.06.2017 passed Resolution for cancellation of both Right and Left canals of Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project and accordingly submitted proposal to the Government.

¶58

8. I say that the said proposal was approved by the State Government by Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023. Copy of Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit - 1.

¶59

9. I say that the aforesaid lands of the Petitioners were not actually taken into possession at any time by the State Government. I say that the said lands are in possession of the Petitioners since beginning and at present also the Petitioners are using the said lands.

¶60

10. I say that there are revenue entries made in the 7/12 extract of the aforesaid lands in favour of the District Resettlement Officer, Pune. I say that the said entries will be removed by the Respondent by following due process of law. I hereto annexed and marked 7 12 extract as Exhibit - 2.

¶61

11. I say that in view of the subsequent developments, the State Government does not require the aforesaid lands and now there is no reason for the state Government to take any steps for - acquisition of the aforesaid lands belonging to the petitioners.

¶62

12. I say that as such, the Judgement dated 01.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court does not require any further compliance in view of the changed circumstances. I say that as such, there is no contempt of the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017.”

¶63

The above averments mean that the Respondents are no longer interested in the acquisition and consequently, there can be no compulsion upon the Respondents to proceed with the acquisition and make any award determining compensation. In such circumstances, we decline to initiate any contempt proceedings against the Respondents.

Page 5 of 6

Sayyed

11-CP.5.2024.docx

The contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of but with liberty to the Petitioners to take such steps as they may be advised, in case they have any grievances regards the attempted acquisition.

¶68

The Contempt Petitions are disposed of with liberty in the above terms.

¶69

Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/01/2025 11:45:51

¶70

Page 6 of 6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 1 March 2019 of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017, alleged breach whereof is the subject of these contempt petitions: the Respondents were directed to complete acquisition proceedings in respect of determination of amount of compensation, declare award and pay compensation so determined within a year from 1 March 2019.¶53
High Court of Judicature at Bombay · 1 March 2019
Prior proceeding
By order dated 1 March 2019 in Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017, the Respondents were directed to complete acquisition proceedings in respect of determination of amount of compensation, declare award and pay compensation so determined under the award within a year from 1 March 2019.¶53
Prior proceeding
No award having been made within a year, the Petitioners instituted these contempt petitions alleging breach of the said directions.¶54
Prior proceeding
Mr. Vaibhav Navadkar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division Baramati filed an affidavit in all these petitions; paragraphs 7 to 12 thereof were transcribed by the Court.¶54
Prior proceeding
Affidavit records that for the Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project 148.089 MLD water was reserved for irrigation out of 188.611 MLD total use and 19645 Hector was excluded from the 23110 Hector benefit zone; the Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal, in its 95th Board meeting dated 19.06.2017, passed a Resolution for cancellation of both Right and Left canals and submitted a proposal to the Government.¶57
Prior proceeding
The said proposal was approved by the State Government by Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023.¶58
Prior proceeding
Affidavit avers that the Petitioners' lands were never actually taken into possession by the State Government and remain in the Petitioners' possession; 7/12 revenue entries in favour of the District Resettlement Officer, Pune are to be removed by following due process of law.¶59
Prior proceeding
Affidavit avers that, in view of the subsequent developments, the State Government does not require the lands and there is no reason to take steps for acquisition; hence the judgment dated 01.03.2019 requires no further compliance in view of the changed circumstances and there is no contempt of the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017.¶62

Sonaba Gangaram Khaladkar v. Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonaba Gangaram Khaladkar v. Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vitthal Baburao Harpale and Ors. vs Sub Divisional Officer Haveli Pune Sub Division and Ors.

Sojar Alias Rukminbai W/O Hari Mule vs Krishnath Alis Krishna S/O Gopal Tate and Ors.

Jaychand Shantilal Surana and Anr. vs Barshi Municipal Council Thr Its Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Shrirang Devram Gadadare vs the Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

Parvatibai Dnyanoba Lavange (Deceased) vs the Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

Jaysingh Kisan Gardare vs the Sub Divisional Officer Baramati