Bombay High Court
Swapnil Vijay Kale vs Ashok Bapu Datir And Another on 20 September, 2021
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R.N. Laddha
CP No.192/20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
106 CONT. PETITION NO.192 OF 2020
IN CP/791/2016 WITH CA/9680/2021 IN CP/192/2020
ASHOK BAPU DATIR
VERSUS
SWAPNIL VIJAY KALE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KUKADI
LEFTCANAL AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.G. Karlekar
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. G.B. Rajale
...
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 20/09/2021.
PER COURT :
. This Court on 3rd March 2020 while issuing notice has observed that the petitioner is justified in making submission before this Court that in spite of the order passed in contempt petition, the acquiring body representing through respondent No. 1 in the present contempt petition is just sitting idle even for seeking information as to whether acquiring body complied its part as directed by this Court vide order dated 21 st of October, 2017.
2. It is almost four years, the respondents are either ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 04:17:10 ::: CP No.192/20 2 sitting idle or moving at snails pace. On 31 st of October 2017 in contempt petition filed by the present petitioner, this Court had recorded the statement of the learned advocate Mr. Rajale that the acquiring body sent the proposal to the State seeking acquisition of the petitioner's land, however, it is returned back on the ground that the acquiring body should negotiate and get the sale deed executed. The claimants are not agreeable for execution of the sale deed.
3. We had observed that in that case the only option with the respondents is to move for compulsory acquisition under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. We had directed the acquiring body to send the proposal to the Government for acquisition complete in all respects within a period of four weeks.
Instead of four weeks, almost four years are going to lapse, but the proceedings are not taken to it's logical end and now in the contempt petition the plea is taken that particular Officer was only incharge officer for the period of 8 to 10 months and some other officer is there. Instead of complying the orders passed by this Court, the technical flaws are being sought to be resorted.
3. We are not inclined to recall the earlier order issuing ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 04:17:10 ::: CP No.192/20 3 bailable warrant. We were constrained to pass that order as though respondent No. 1 was served, he did not appear.
4. Mr. Rajale, learned advocate submits that another person namely Ramdas Pundlik Jagtap is incharge of the said proceedings and he would accept notice for him. Mr. Rajale, the learned advocate shall take instruction from the said Mr. Jagtap under any circumstances on or before 12th of October, 2021. If we do not find satisfactory steps being undertaken we would take cognizance of the contempt on the said date and would be required to frame charges for the contempt.
5. Till the next date, we keep the order dated 26 th July 2021 issuing bailable warrant to respondent No. 1 in abeyance.
[ R.N. LADDHA, J. ] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
ssc/
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 04:17:10 :::