Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ballu Pandurang Nake And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 31 August, 2018

Bench: Prasanna B.Varale, Manish Pitale

                                             {1}                       927CP161-17




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 161 OF 2017
                                     IN
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 9199/2013

 1.       Balu Pandurang Nake
          Age : 62 years, Occu:- Agri
          R/o:- Sawkheda Tq. Khultabad
          Dist. Aurangabad.

 2.       Mahdu Mohan Ahire
          Age : 72 years, Occu:- Agri
          R/o:- As above

 3.       Shamrao Sayaji Nake
          Age : 66 years, Occu:- Agri
          R/o:- As above

 4.       Malanbai Sandu Nake
          Age : 70 years, Occu:- Agri
          R/o:- As above

 5.       Sheshrao Sayaji Nake
          Age : 80 years, Occu:- Agri
          R/o:- As above

 6.       Genu Punjaba Gaikwad
          Died thr lrs thr GPA
          Gangubai Genu Gaikwad
          Age : 75 years, Occu:- Agri
          R/o:- As above.                                   ...Petitioners

                           Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra, (Formal Party)
          through The Secretary, Minor Irrigation
          & Construction Dept. Mantralaya,
          Mumbai-32.

 2.       Smt. Manjusha Mutha
          Special Land Acquisition Officer,/
          Sub-Divisional Officer, guest house,
          S.T. Workshop, Mukundwadi,
          Aurangabnad Dist - Aurangabad.




::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018                                ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 00:09:59 :::
                                              {2}                       927CP161-17


 3.       Shri. Anil Motilal Nimbhure,
          The Executive Engineer,
          Minor Irrigation Division No.1
          Aurangabad Dist-Aurangabad.

 4.       Smt. Nidhi Pandey,
          The Dist. Collector,
          Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad.                               ...Respondents.

 Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. G.S. Patil
 AGP for Respondent/State : S.M. Ganachari

                               CORAM : PRASANNA B.VARALE AND
                                       MANISH PITALE, JJ.

                               DATE:     31st AUGUST, 2018

 ORAL ORDER :

1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Patil for the Petitioners and learned AGP for respondents. The grievance of the petitioners is of non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 21.04.2016 in Writ Petition No.9199/2013. The Division Bench of this Court was pleased to direct respondent No. 3 to complete the procedure and disburse the amount due to petitioner within a period of four months from the date of the order. The reply is filed before us through one Smt. Manjusha Mutha, Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Aurangabad and it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply, more particularly at paragraph 4 that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kannad, who is the concerned Land Acquisition Officer has determined the amount of rental compensation payable to the present petitioners vide order dated 10.03.2016. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kannad has also issued the letter dated 10.03.2016, thereby directing the respondent No.3 to deposit the amount of rental compensation ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 00:09:59 ::: {3} 927CP161-17 determined by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Kannad. The copy of the order is also placed on record along with the reply Exhibit-'R- 1'. In view of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, directing the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department No.1, Aurangabad to quantify the amount due and payable to the petitioners against the rental compensation and disburse the same expeditiously, we direct respondent No. 3 to take immediate steps and to see personally that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 10.03.2016 is complied with and the petitioners received the quantified amount within two weeks from the date of order of this Court.

2. The learned AGP to establish contact with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 personally and apprise them the order of this Court. In view of the above referred directions, nothing survives in the Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.

   ( MANISH PITALE, J. )                   ( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. )


 mta




::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018                                ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 00:09:59 :::