{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.124 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1167 OF 1993 Mir Alam Khan Kalandar Khan PETITIONER VERSUS Mr.Mohan Thombre, Deputy Custodian & Collector, Parbhani & another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. N.P.Patil (Jamalpurkar) Advocate for petitioner Mr. N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.1 and 2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges that the respondents have not obeyed the order dated 16.03.2005 passed in writ petition No.1167/1993. Record shows that on 02.12.2009, Deputy Collector, Parbhani, Mr.Suresh Shejwal, had made a statement before this Court that he shall decide the application about the decision of compensation, within a period of 4 months from 02.12.2009 and hence the contempt petition was adjourned for four months. Thereafter, today the contempt petition {2} came up for hearing. It is to be noted that Collector and Tahsildar, Parbhani are the parties to this petition, as they have not obeyed the orders to decide the claim u/s 20 A of the Land Acquisition Act. Today copy of the order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the Collector, Parbhani is placed on record. It is marked as “X” for identification. Along with the order, a letter addressed by the Collector to the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, dated 30.01.2010 is annexed. By the said letter, a request is made to make available funds in the sum of Rs. 86,18,830/- towards the compensation to be paid to the petitioner. It is to be noted that the funds are to be made available by the Secretary, who is not a party to this contempt petition. 2. As the undertaking given to this Court on 02.12.2009 is complied with by passing the order, now nothing remains in this contempt petition and hence the petition needs to be disposed of. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of and the respondents are discharged from the contempt. 3. After this order came to be passed, learned counsel for the petitioner expresses an anxiety that though the order to pay compensation is passed yet the matter would not end here, as it is past experience that though the order is passed the parties have to wait to receive the amount. At this juncture, it is made clear that the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, who has to release the funds, is not a party to this petition. However, it does {3} not make any difference. The remedy available to the petitioner is kept open. If the amount of compensation is not paid to the petitioner within a reasonable time, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate recourse. With this clarification, the contempt petition stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cp124-08