1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 158 OF 2008 Gaushiyabegum w/o. Mohd. Aref, R/o. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli ....Applicant. Versus N.M. Namalwad, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Basmath, Dist. Hingoli ....Respondent. Shri. S.S. Thombare, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 5th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. On 22nd of September 2006 this Court decided Writ Petition No. 5540/2006. The portion, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition, is contained in para 3 of the judgment which is reproduced below. "3. The petition can be conveniently disposed of by giving directions to the respondent No. 2 - Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, to decide the appeal No. 2006/ROR/119 within a couple of months from date of receipt of this order and in the meanwhile the statusquo shall be maintained which may not be interpreted as prohibition against the transaction/alienation etc. regarding disputed property but is only in respect of change of the nature of the property i.e. construction. The alienation regarding disputed property if any shall be subject to the decision of the respondent No. 2. " 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to 2 panchanama dated 16.8.2006 on page 29 of the contempt petition to point out that some construction was being carried out in respect of the suit property in violation of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. It is significant to note that the panchanama is dated 16.8.2006, whereas the order was passed by this Court on 22nd September 2006. In view of this, panchanama dated 16.8.2006 is of no help to contend that the construction was carried out in willful breach of the order dated 22nd September 2006. The learned counsel further contends that some persons have carried out the construction, changing the nature of the property in question. However, the names of persons are not given in the contempt petition nor anyone of them has joined as party respondent. The learned counsel further contends that it was the duty of the Chief Officer Municipal Council Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli, who is respondent herein, to see that no construction is carried out, to change the nature of property in question. However, such a duty is not spelt out by the order which is reproduced above. 3. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the instant contempt petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp158.08