(1) cast31758-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 31758 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8690 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8705 OF 2010 Pandurang s/o Venkoba Gaddime APPLICANT/ PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate holding for Mr. T.M. Venjane, advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. S.B. Talekar, advocate for Respondent Nos. 5-1 to 5-3. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, advocate for Respondent No. 6. Mr. R.R. Sancheti, advocate holding for Mr. R.R. Mantri, advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8705/2010. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 9th DECEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. By way of present civil application, the applicant/petitioner has approached this Court apprehending his dispossession. 2. It is the contention of the applicant/ petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 - Tahsildar has issued notice dated 4th December, 2011, directing the (2) cast31758-11 petitioner to immediately remove his unauthorized construction and further that the possession of the land will be given to the decree-holder on 9th December, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. Shri Salunke, appearing for the petitioner, contends that the said notice is issued by the Tahsildar on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 24th November, 2011 in Contempt Petition No. 19/2010 alongwith the companion matters. The applicant/petitioner has, therefore, prayed for grant of order staying their dispossession. 3. The very same learned Single Judge of this Court, who has passed order dated 24th November, 2011, has specifically clarified his order on 5th December, 2011, by another order passed in Civil Application No. 14709/2011. The learned Single Judge has observed that the order dated 5th June, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 3379/2009, in the light of the orders passed on 17th June, 2009 in Review Petition No. 89/2009, would not be binding on the parties who were not the parties to the said writ petition. Undisputedly, the record shows that at the (3) cast31758-11 request of learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3379/2009, the name of the present applicant/petitioner, who was the respondent No. 4 in the said writ petition, has been deleted. It may be further seen that the learned Single Judge has also clarified that the order dated 14th July, 2009 passed in Review Petition No. 94/2009 and 93/2009 in Writ Petition No. 3379/2009 will be restricted only to the respondents who were parties to the said petition. 4. When the learned Single Judge has himself clarified that the orders passed by him on 24th November, 2011 will be restricted only to the parties who were parties to Writ Petition No. 3379/2009 and would not be binding insofar as the persons who were not parties in the said proceedings and when undisputedly, the present applicant/petitioner, who was respondent No. 4 in that writ petition, has been deleted, at his request, from the array of the respondents, we find that the argument in that respect is misplaced. 5. It is further to be noted that the petitioner has approached to this Court apprehending (4) cast31758-11 his dispossession vide notice dated 4th December, 2011. The said notice has been issued prior to 5th December, 2011 i.e. the date on which the learned Single Judge has by the elaborate order clarified the entire scenario. The respondents authorities, who are the State Government officials would be bound to take into consideration the detailed observations of the learned Single Judge made in his order dated 5th December, 2011. We are sure that the respondent authorities will apply their mind to the entire record and after application of mind, would consider as to what is the true import of various orders passed by this Court and the subsequent order dated 5th December, 2011 and would proceed in accordance with law. Merely because the earlier order threatens the respondent-authorities with an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/-, on account of in-action, cannot be a reason to apprehend that the authorities will not consider the second elaborate order passed by the very same learned Single Judge. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities are present on the spot (5) cast31758-11 and that they are bent upon to dispossess the petitioner. This fact is disputed by learned counsel Shri Talekar. Needless to state that merely because the respondent-authorities were present on the spot cannot be a ground to apprehend that the authorities would not take into consideration the elaborate order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 5th December, 2011. Though the learned Single Judge has directed, vide order dated 24th November, 2011, that if the officers fail to adhere to the directions in the writ petition, they will personally be required to pay the costs of Rs. 50,000/-, the very same learned Single Judge has specifically observed in his subsequent order dated 5th December, 2011 that the aforesaid order would not be applicable to the parties who were not the parties to Writ Petition No. 3379/2009. 7. Needless to state that if any action is taken by the respondent-authorities in contravention of the order dated 5th December, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent-authorities would also be liable to face the contempt proceedings (6) cast31758-11 for non-compliance of the order dated 5th December, 2011. In that view of the matter and considering the above observations, the present Civil Application stands disposed of. 8. Post the main petitions for admission after December, 2011 vacations. 9. The learned A.G.P. is requested to communicate the above order to the Collector. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/cast31758-11