Bombay High Court
Bibhishan Rokhade Shere And Another vs Deepa Mudhol Mundhe The Collector ... on 10 January, 2020
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Anil S. Kilor
1 933-CP-285-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8652 OF 2016
Bibhishan Rokhade Shere and Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
Deepa Mudhol - Mundhe,
The Collector, Osmanabad and Anr. ...Respondents
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
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2020 PER COURT :
1. 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. ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 16:44:24 :::
2 933-CP-285-2019
2. 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-in- reply that the deponent tenders her unconditional apology for the delay and inconvenience caused to this Court.
3. 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.
4. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.
[ ANIL S. KILOR ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
mta
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 16:44:24 :::