1 cp452-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.452 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 2010 Narayandas Chetandas Sundrani and ors. ..Petitioners versus Suresh Reddy and ors. .. Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.453 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1092 OF 2010 Jitu Prakash Revachand Sundrani and ors. ..Petitioners versus Suresh Reddy and ors. .. Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.456 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1093 OF 2010 Narayandas Chetandas Sundrani and ors. ..Petitioners versus Suresh Reddy and ors. .. Respondents .... Mr.S.P.Kanuga i/b.Mr.Sapna Nath, for petitioners (in all petitions). Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 (in all petitions) .... 2 cp452-10.sxw CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16 th NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 to 4. The breach alleged is of order dated 23 rd February, 2010 passed by the Division Bench which reads as under:- “ The learned Asstt. Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 states that in case the petitioners appear before Respondent No.1 and satisfies by producing the documents that they are the owners of the lands of which they want the measurement to be taken, then respondent No.1 shall do the measurement as per the application of the petitioners. Statement is accepted. In view of this statement, the petitioners to appear before Respondent No.1 on 8 th March, 2010 along with a copy of this order and the documents which will establish conclusively that they are the owners of the lands in relation to which the applications dated 19.11.2009 for measurement were submitted to Respondent No.1, copy of which is at Exh.D annexed to each of the petition. Respondent No.1 shall thereafter hold enquiry to satisfy himself that the petitioners are the owners of the lands and on being satisfied the Respondent No.1 shall proceed to take the measurement and fix the boundary marks on the lands as per the applications 3 cp452-10.sxw dated 19.11.2009 after the petitioners deposit the necessary fees for the same. This be done within a period of six weeks from 8.3.2010. Petitions are disposed of. “ 2] After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is nothing on record to show that on 8 th March, 2010 the petitioners produced the documents before the first respondent. The direction of the Division Bench to the petitioners was to produce the documents on 8 th March, 2010 which will conclusively establish that the petitioners were the owners of the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the letter dated 8 th March, 2010 submitted by the petitioners. He submitted that the documents were already on record. He submitted that prior to the order of the Division bench, the first respondent himself had accepted the title of the petitioners. 3] There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have complied with their part of the order dated 23 rd February, 2010 by producing the documents of title before the first respondent on 8 th March, 2010. In the circumstances, this is not a case where action can be initiated against the first respondent for committing contempt. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent, after having accepted the title of the petitioners, acted upon the order of the Division Bench and accepted the fees for survey. The position reflected from the record is that the petitioners did not comply the order of the 4 cp452-10.sxw Division Bench by producing the documents of title on 8 th March, 2010. Therefore, at this stage, no case is made out for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and/or under the Article 215 of Constitution of India. Contempt Petitions are disposed of. 4] This order will not prevent the petitioners from producing the documents of title before the concerned Officer. (A.S.OKA, J)