ash 1 cp-137.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 137 OF 2008 Sou Leelawati Sopan Pawar. .. Petitioner Vs Indapur Nagar Parishad & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri P.B. Shah for the Petitioner. Shri Rahul Kate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 6. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 8TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.3 to 6 . 2. The breach alleged is of the order dated 30th September, 2004 passed on Civil Application in the Second Appeal. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) was granted by this Court by the said order. Prayer clause (a) reads thus:- “(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Appeal respondent may be restrained from disturbing plaintiff’s possession in respect of suit property.” ash 2 cp-137.08 3. The first breach alleged is that a notice was issued by Indapur Police Station on 12th November, 2007 at the instance of the first Respondent Indapur Nagar Parishad informing the Constituted Attorney of the Petitioner that the illegal construction on the suit land will be demolished on 13th November, 2007. It is alleged that the construction on the suit land was demolished on 13th November, 2007 in breach of the aforesaid order of injunction. It is alleged that 50 to 60 employees of the first Respondent Indapur Municipal Council entered the suit property thereby disturbing the possession of the Petitioner in gross breach of the order of injunction of this Court. It is alleged that because of such gross breach, the Petitioner has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. 4. Another allegation made is that in breach of the order of injunction of this Court, the first Respondent applied for carrying out survey and measurement of the suit land to the Taluka Inspector of Land Records and though the Taluka Inspector of Land Records was informed about the said order, the measurement was illegally carried out by the fourth Respondent at the instance of the first Respondent. It is pointed out that at that time, the Chief Officer of the first Respondent (second Respondent herein) and other Officers of the first Respondent were present and they entered the suit land in breach of the order of ash 3 cp-137.08 injunction of this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to the averments made in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Contempt Petition and the complaint lodged on 26th September, 2007 with the Indapur Police Station. He stated that in the complaint, it is disclosed that on 23rd November, 2007 under the pretext of survey, 50 to 60 employees of the first Respondent Municipal Council along with the second Respondent entered the suit property and threatened the labourers employed by the Petitioner. He submitted that not only that the said act of encroachment was committed but infact the second Respondent lodged a false complaint with the police and thereafter the Petitioner’s Constituted Attorney was arrested. He, therefore, submitted that this is a gross breach of order of injunction of this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent has tendered a copy of the Plaint in the suit, out of which the Second Appeal arises. He pointed out that illegal structure erected by the Petitioner on the suit land has been demolished after following due process of law. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of the copy of the Plaint tendered across the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner shows that the suit property is an open land and not the structure thereon. In the affidavit-in-reply of the second ash 4 cp-137.08 Respondent, it is pointed out that a notice under Section 189(8) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 and Sections 54 and 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was served to the Petitioner and thereafter, after issuing communication dated 11th September, 2007, action of demolition was initiated. There was no specific injunction granted in respect of the structure on the suit property. The structure on the suit land was demolished after issuing notice as aforesaid and, therefore, the action of demolition after following due process of law cannot be said to be in breach of the order of injunction of this Court as admittedly the possession of the suit land of the Petitioner has not been disturbed. As far as the second ground is concerned, the Taluka Inspector of Land Records being a Survey Officer under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is entitled to carry out the work of measurement and survey in accordance with the provisions of the said Code. The action of the second Respondent of applying for measurement cannot be said to be in breach of the order of injunction. At the time of survey, it is alleged that the second Respondent and other officers of the first Respondent were present. The order of injunction does not prevent the first Respondent from applying for carrying out survey in accordance with the provisions of the said Code. At the time of carrying out survey, the officers of the first Respondent were present. It is not the case that after survey was over, any officer of the first Respondent continued to remain on the suit ash 5 cp-137.08 land. Thus, they had entered the suit land when the Surveyor was carrying out the survey in accordance with the provisions of the said Code. 7. Apart from that, there was no injunction granted against the Taluka Inspector of Land Records. If any damage has been caused to the standing crop of the Petitioner, it is for the Petitioner to initiate proceedings for recovery of compensation/damages. Suffice it to say that no case of deliberate breach of the order of injunction has been made out. 8. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Petition is disposed of. 9. Papers of the Second Appeal No.152 of 2004 shall be separated and sent to the concerned department. ( A.S. OKA, J )