cp104.08.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 104/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2260/2001 (Manoj Navnath Mahajan vs. Dinesh Damodar Gajade and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. V.G.Wankhede, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.P.Raghute, Advocate for Respondent No.1-1. None for other respondents. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : 9 th April, 2010 This petition complains about willful disobedience of the order dated 6.3.2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2329/2001. By this order, this Court had directed that the plot which will be reserved from the sanctioned layout plan, for the disputant will be plot no.2 and allotment of this plot no.2 will be subject to the decision of the dispute. 2/- Shri Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the averments made in Para 11 of the Contempt Petition which are reproduced below. “11. It is submitted that after passing an order by this Hon'ble Court, the respondent no.1 cp104.08.odt 2 without complying the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 6.3.2002 submitted a plan to the respondent no.3 and thereby sanctioned the layout plan without following the mandatory directions of this Hon'ble Court and thereby renumbered the plots and reduced the size of the old plot no.98, new plot no.2, at the same time change the place of plot no.2. After perusal of the sanctioned map dated 12.08.2005 the sanctioned map by the respondent no.1 reveals that the plot no.2 is a smallest plot in the layout and this was intentionally done by the respondent no.1 for depriving the petitioner from allotment of old plot no.98, new plot no.2, admeasuring 4860 sq.ft., that due to which the respondent no. 1 and 3 disobey an order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The map sanctioned by the respondent no.3 dated 12.08.2005 is at Annexure-D to this petition. and urged that respondents have committed the contempt of Court. 3/- Shri Raghute, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit of Respondent no.1 dated 9.4.2010 in which the statement is made as under; 1............ whereas the alleged renumbered Plot No. 2 shown in the map at Annexure 'A' to the petition is at different place than of plot No. 98, a subject matter in W.P. No. 2329/2001, and it is admeasuring about 4648 sq.ft. and not 4860 sq. ft. But, as submitted before this cp104.08.odt 3 Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 2329/2001, a plot admeasuring about 4860 sq.ft. is reserved for petitioner and will be allotted to him if he succeeds in a dispute preferred by him before the Co-operative Court, subject to the decision of the Co-operative Court,Nagpur. 4/- Shri Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid statement appearing in the affidavit of Respondent no.1 satisfies the grievance of the petitioner and the question of contempt, therefore, does not arise. 5/- In view of the aforesaid position, nothing survives in this contempt Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. J UDGE Rvjalit