Disposed¶7

Baban Bahiru Londhe v. the Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

Bombay HC3 Jan 2025CP/7/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt Petition; Bombay High Court; Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; CP/5/2024 with connected CP/7-11/2024 and CP/59-67/2024; Sub-Divisional Officer Baramati; contempt of order dated 1 March 2019; Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017; Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project; cancellation of Right and Left Canals; Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal; Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023; land acquisition; compensation award; lands not taken into possession; 7/12 extract; District Resettlement Officer Pune; no contempt initiated; petitions disposed of with liberty to pursue remedies.

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. ¶7

Baban Bahiru Londhe vs the 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.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the Respondents for alleged breach of the Court's order dated 1 March 2019 directing completion of acquisition proceedings, declaration of award and payment of compensation within a year.

¶4

Court's answer

Since 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; the Court therefore declines to initiate any contempt proceedings against the Respondents.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

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

¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; per Sonak J), decision dated 3 January 2025 — Fifteen contempt petitions (CP No.5 of 2024 with connected CP Nos.7–11 and 59–67 of 2024) by landowners against the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati, alleging breach of the Court's order dated 1 March 2019 (arising from Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017) directing completion of acquisition proceedings, declaration of award and payment of compensation within a year. No award having been made within a year, the contempt petitions were filed. The SDO (Vaibhav Navadkar) swore an affidavit recording that the Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal (95th Board meeting, 19.06.2017) resolved to cancel both Right and Left canals of the Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project; the State approved the proposal by Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023; the petitioners' lands were never taken into possession; 7/12 revenue entries stand in favour of the District Resettlement Officer, Pune, and will be removed by due process; and 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; the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings and disposed of the petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to take such steps as they may be advised regarding grievances on 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 (arising from Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017) directing the Respondents to complete acquisition proceedings, determine compensation, declare award and pay compensation within a year from 1 March 2019; the alleged non-compliance with this order is the subject of the contempt petitions.¶3
High Court of Judicature at Bombay · 1 March 2019
Prior proceeding
Because no award was made within a year of the 1 March 2019 order, the Petitioners instituted these contempt petitions alleging breach of the Court's directions.¶4
Prior proceeding
In all these petitions, Mr. Vaibhav Navadkar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division Baramati filed an affidavit; its paragraphs 7 to 12 were transcribed by the Court.¶5
Prior proceeding
Affidavit averment: during the Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project canal work, 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 (95th Board of Directors meeting, 19.06.2017) passed a Resolution for cancellation of both Right and Left canals and submitted the proposal to the Government.¶57
Prior proceeding
Affidavit averment: the State Government approved the cancellation proposal by Government Resolution dated 28.08.2023 (annexed as Exhibit-1).¶58
Prior proceeding
Affidavit averment: the Petitioners' lands were never actually taken into possession by the State Government and remain in the Petitioners' possession.¶59
Prior proceeding
Affidavit averment: revenue entries stand in the 7/12 extracts of the lands in favour of the District Resettlement Officer, Pune (Exhibit-2), and will be removed by the Respondent following due process of law.¶60
Prior proceeding
Affidavit averment: in view of subsequent developments the State Government does not require the lands and there is no reason to take steps for their acquisition.¶61
Prior proceeding
Affidavit averment: the judgment dated 01.03.2019 requires no further compliance given changed circumstances and there is no contempt of the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.9886 of 2017.¶62

Baban Bahiru Londhe v. the Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Bahiru Londhe v. the 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.

Sonaba Gangaram Khaladkar vs Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

Shrirang Devram Gadadare vs the Sub Divisional Officer Baramati

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