C.P.No.219/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.219 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6350 OF 2008 Rajendra Shankarrao Korke .. Petitioner Versus Mr Manukumar Shrivastava, Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents Mr N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner Mr K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent State Mr Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23rd November 2011 PER COURT Heard Mr Suryanshi. He has invited my attention to the orders of the Division Bench, particularly paragraphs 2 and 5 thereof dated 26.8.2010. Learned Counsel informs, the award purported to be recorded on 7.9.2011 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is merely an eye- wash, as the land covered in 100 feet wide road is in entire space of 76230 sq.ft., recorded in the revenue record of S.No.483/2 at Dhule. Learned Counsel points, the award refers to the restricted area of 3542 sq.meter, which comes to 38112 square feet. C.P.No.219/2011 2 2. Perused the Award. In the award proceedings, hearing was given to the petitioner. He addressed that his area for acquisition should be treated as 7884.57 square meters. The same was sent to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation; opinion was sought, wherein the learned Commissioner informed that as per Building Construction Development Control Rules, the area is to be calculated as 2897.50 square meter and not 7884.57 square meters. In measurement it was found that the available area for acquisition was 3542 square meters. The Special Land Acquisition Officer even informed that as per Section 6 notification the area is 3542 square meter and, therefore, he did not agree to the Municipal Corporation. He has referred to orders of this Court and referred, the orders of this Court if not followed, it may amount to breach or contempt of the orders of this Court. The fact situation was duly verified and consequently, the award for an area 3542 square meter was determined for valuation. Considering these aspects, the points now raised by Mr Suryawanshi relates to dispute in respect of the area acquired and claim raised by petitioner in the writ petition. It is a dispute of area, leading to proper evidence. Consequently, it will not amount to contempt. The petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. Petition disposed of. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/219.11cp)