FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | CONTEMPT PETITION NO.183/2008 Shri P.N.Sonpethkar,Adv.for applicant. Shri S.K.Kadam,AGP,for State. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 01/12/2009. 1] This petition complains about wilful disobedience of the order dated 14/9/94 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2966/94. Status quo order was passed by this Court on 14/9/99, in the light of the prayers for interim relief which are in clauses "C" and "D" on page 15 of the contempt petition which are reproduced below : [C]Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition the respondents Nos.1 to 6 and their servants, agents and any one acting for them be restrained by an order of injunction, from interfering and obstructing the occupation and possession of the lands bearing survey Nos.48, 49 and 50 (Now Gut Nos.46/1 and part of 46/2) situated at village Maliwada, Tq. and Dist.Aurangabad of the petitioners. [D] Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the respondent No.7 and any persons claiming under him be restrained by an order of injunction of this Hon ble Court from interfering and obstructing the possession of the petitioners or dealing with the lands bearing survey nos.48,49 and 50 (Now Gut Nos.46/1 and part of 46/2) situated at village Maliwada, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad or creating third party interest in the said lands by reason of the purported allotment made by respondents nos.1 and 2 in his favour. 2] It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of aforesaid order of status quo which is to be read in the light of the prayer clauses "C" and "D" reproduced above, the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad vide his order dated 21/5/2008 directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the column of cultivation of the suit properties and to show the land as "padit". The learned counsel submits that this amounts to dealing with the property which is in possession of the petitioner. It is not a disputed position in this petition that the petitioner is in actual possession of the property. 3] On the last occasion, i.e. on 17/11/2009, this Court had passed an order as under : Shri Khandare, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks time to file an affidvit, clarifying the position that the order passed on 21/5/2008, which is on page NO.96, annexed to the affidavit dated 30.7.2008 filed by the respondent no.1, is not intended to disturb the possession of the petitioner in view of the status quo order dated 14.9.1994 passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO.5182/1990 and Writ Petition No.990/1990. Time is granted. Put up after two weeks. 4] Pursuant to the aforesaid order, additional affidavit has been filed in this Court on 24/11/2009, incorporating paragraphs 2 and 3 which are reproduced below : 2] I say that, the rules namely Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights (Preparation and Maintenance) Rules 1971 framed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, required taking crop inspection and maintenance of record of rights including entries of cultivation of respective land and crops taken therein. This record and reports are the basis for preparing crop statistic by the Government on which policies are decided. In the light of this rules yearly inspection/ verification of cultivation is necessary. 3] I say that, entries regarding land in question recorded as  Padit i.e. Uncultivated land is only for the purpose of preparation of records and the same does not make prejudice to the right and interest of the petitioner. The record in the entry does not any way disturb possession of the petitioner over the land and it would not affect any way or create hurdle or dispossession of the petitioner. 5] In view of the aforesaid affidavit, it is apparent that the petitioner is not divested of any of his rights and the reliefs which are claimed in paragraphs C and D reproduced above. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the petition. The same is dismissed. It is informed that the petitioner has also filed Appeal against Order dated 4/5/08 in respect of which the contempt is complained of. The same shall be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by dismissal of the Contempt Petition. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/cp183-08