0204cp20.09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 20 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4366 OF 2004 (D) Laxman Budharmal Angnani - Petitioner -: Versus :- W. S. Nikose, S. D. O., Morshi and Purushottam Bhapkar, the Collector, Amravati. - Respondents .......................................................................................................................................................... Shri Anil Mardikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. S. Khubalkar, A. G. P. for the respondents. ................................................................................................................................. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 02nd April, 2009 P. C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It is rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondents by the learned A. G. P. that this contempt petition cannot be entertained in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act as by the order dated 12/7/2005 of which the contempt is alleged, the respondents were directed to allot a plot to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of the judgment and the petitioner ought to have moved this Court within a period of one year from the date of expiry of four months' period. 3. Be that as it may. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by an affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 that the Assistant Director 0204cp20.09.sxw 2 of Town Planning, Amravati had informed Tahsildar, Morshi by a communication dated 31/5/2008 that the proposed portion of the land which was earlier sought to be allotted to the petitioner falls within 37 meters from the center of the State High Way and, therefore, the sanction to the layout plan was not granted as there cannot be any construction on the same. It is further stated in the affidavit in reply that on 02/3/2009 another proposal was forwarded to the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Amravati for allotment of land in Survey No. 210. 4. Shri Mardikar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating therein that the proposal dated 02/3/2009 is not acceptable to the petitioner as the said site is 2.00 Km. away from the existing site in Survey No. 26 and is near a burial ground where the petitioner cannot carry on his business of footwear shop. 5. The respondents may, however, look in to the matter and see that a reasonable site is made available to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 12/7/2005. In any case, if the site proposed by the respondents is not agreeable to the petitioner, the petitioner can avail remedies available to the petitioner, if so advised. 6. The contempt petition is, therefore, disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE wwl