1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.131 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.873 OF 2007 Bajrang Baburao Borulwad & ors. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. M.D. Thube-Mhase, Advocate for the petitioners Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. For State ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th November, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. In Writ Petition No.873/2007, on 27.2.2008, the Division Bench observed in paragraph No.5 as under : “5. In the present case, Shri K.G. Patil, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the land of the petitioners has, indeed, been acquired for the construction of the aforesaid road and it appears that no land acquisition proceedings had been initiated. A proposal had been submitted on 13.12.2006 by the acquiring body for initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. It appears that no further steps have been taken in pursuance to the said proposal. Mr. Patil, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the respondents would initiate appropriate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act within three months from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court.” 2. The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioners 2 is, the concerned Land Acquisition Officer had a prejudice against the petitioners and consequently, there was delay on his part. It is also informed that the State challenged the order referred above in the Apex Court. However, faced brunt of its dismissal. 3. The counsel informs that, in terms of above referred paragraph No.5, indeed the proceedings for acquisition have been initiated. However, it is not in tune with what was agreed upon. 4. The learned counsel may be correct, however, this Court cannot travel beyond the directions in terms of paragraph No.5 referred above and primarily there is no contempt or breach of order since notification in terms of Section 4 is initiated by the competent authority. Contempt petition lacks merits. It is dismissed. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cp131.09