1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 218/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1883/2004 Yashodeep Gruha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Ltd. vs. Rajiv Krishnarao Pimple =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Mr. S.D.Chopde, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K.Mishra, Counsel for Respondent. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 8th JUNE, 2010. Heard extensively. 2) In Writ Petition No. 1883/2004, while rule was issued on 31.3.2005, the Division Bench gave following direction. “Respondent would not hold auction sale, assigns or create any third party rights in respect of remaining 1.48 acres of land covered under the agreement between petitioner and Nagpur Improvement Trust vide agreement dated 15/12/1972. At the same time it is also made clear that the petitioner would also not be entitled to create any third party rights or allot the said land to any of its' members.” 3) The petitioner has a grievance that these directions are not scrupulously adhered to, for the reason that no land to the extent of 1.48 acres which 2 was part of the agreement is available to be handed over to the petitioner. The counsel submits, the Development Authority has in utter contravention of the mandate dated 31st March, 2005, allotted a piece of land to the extent of 5000 sq.ft. 4) These averments are refuted by the counsel representing the Development Authority, the respondent-alleged contemnor. An affidavit is filed (Page 97) by Rajiv Krishnarao Pimple, specifying that land covered under the road is to the tune of 1.67 acres and marked as green in the map. He also specified that in the map there are 13 plots together admeasuring 66,199 sq.ft, which comprise 1..52 acres, which according to him has been reserved pursuant to the order dated 31st March, 2005, referred above. 5) In the light of this affidavit, it is the submission made by the Planning Authority which needs to be accepted and any variation if illustrated will have its rigor and consequence upon the respondent. For the present, there is a specific statement by the authority and in the light of the same, there being an area of 1.52 acres earmarked in tune to the orders dated 31st March, 2005, I do not see any disobedience or contempt by the N.I.T. or by the Officer. 3 6) The affidavit on record is tendered by the petitioner today. Copy tendered by the learned counsel whereby he informs that the Planning Authority is in a race of disposing of the property or denotifying the acquired property which will adversely affect the claim of the petitioner. I do not see that the respondent/ planning authority would travel beyond the scope of the order dated 31st March, 2005, which mandate for reservation of land to the extent of 1.48 acres. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit