1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 53 OF 2008 Bansilal s/o. Chotulal Gawali, R/o. Gat No. 30, Village Kautha, Tq. & Dist. Nanded ....Petitioner. Versus Shankarlal s/o. Jamnalal Dhoot, R/o. Vasant Nagar, Nanded and others ....Respondents. Shri. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 2nd December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This contempt petition complains willful disobedience of the orders dated 24.7.2006 and 31.7.206, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4556/2006 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in which this Court has granted an interim relief in terms of prayer clause "F" of the said writ petition. The prayer clause "F" in the said writ petition is reproduced below :- 2 "(F) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, the respondent no. 1, or any person claiming through him, may please be restrained from alienating or otherwise creating any third party interest in respect of the property owned by the present petitioner situated at S.No. 6A and 6B (Gat No. 30, admeasuring 17 Acres 39 gunthas of the village Kawtha, Taluka and District Nanded). 2. This writ petition is pending and Shri. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the interim orders granted above are still operating. The said writ petition is preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, challenging the order dated 18th of January 2006 as well as the ownership certificate dated 20.3.2006, granted in favour of the present petitioner. On the basis of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which are impugned in the writ petition, the revenue authorities have held that the present petitioner is the owner of the property and the ownership certificate granted in favour of present petitioner, is the subject matter of challenge. The mutation entry is also made in the name of present petitioner on the basis of ownership certificate and orders of the revenue authorities. The possession of the petitioner in respect of the property was confirmed on 20.3.2006. Accepting this factual position, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have claimed interim relief in terms of prayer clause "F", which is reproduced above. The said relief is granted and the present petitioner is restrained from alienating or otherwise creating third party interest in respect of the suit property. 3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking advantage of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, in terms of prayer clause "F", reproduced above, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner and for that purpose, they had filed application dated 31.12.2007, asking the police authorities to provide them police protection in respect of the lands in question. Shri. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the police authorities have also provided the petitioner, protection as per the order dated 2.1.2008, which is on page No. 32 of the petition. He has, therefore, urged that this amounts to violation of the order passed by this Court in terms of prayer clause "F", reproduced above. 4. After going through the entire proceedings, it is a fact that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question. The orders passed by the revenue authorities conferred the ownership upon the petitioner and the mutation entry to that effect has also been taken on 20.3.2006. On this basis, the interim relief in terms of prayer clause "F" has been claimed in the petition by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of this, if at all, the respondent Nos 1 and 2 are taking steps to disturb the possession of the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to adopt all such remedies, as are available to him in law. However, there is no question of violation of the interim orders passed by this Court on 24.7.2006 and 31.7.2006 in terms of prayer clause "F" above, which has been continued 4 till this date, as it is not an order restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with possession of the petitioner. Shri. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, then urged that the police authorities are illegally trying to provide police aid by an order dated 2.1.2008 to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to secure the possession of the suit property, which is owned and possessed by the petitioner. If this is the position, then it is open for the petitioner to adopt all such remedies against said order. However, there is no question of contempt as there is no prohibitory order passed by this Court restraining the police authorities from providing police protection to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. In view of above, there is no substance in the present petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp53.08