(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 16659 OF 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 4966 of 2010) Smt. Jamnabai Shivratan Bagadiya, Age : 78 years, Occupation : Nil - Household, R/o. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg, Jalna, through her GPA, Pannalal Shivratan Bagadiya. .. Applicant. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Jalna - 431 203. 2. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Jalna - 431 203. 3. The Superintendent of Land Records, Jalna. 4. Shri Ganesh Baburao Tidke, Age : 35 years, Sarpanch of Village Mauje Devmurti, Taluka & District : Jalna. 5. Shri Syed Kayyum Syed Mehboob, Age : 38 years, Up-Sarpanch of Village Mauje Devmurti, Taluka & District : Jalna. (2) 6. Shri Jagannath Kashinath Ugale, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Service as Gramsevak of Village Mauje Devmurti, Taluka & District : Jalna. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The applicant (writ petitioner) has filed the present Civil Application, since she has not received a copy of the measurement report which was carried out by the respondent no. 2, in pursuance to the statement made before this Court on 17th June 2010. 2. It is to be noted that on the basis of the statement made before this Court by the learned Government Pleader, on (3) behalf of the respondents, to the effect that the respondent no.2 would undertake the measurement of Gat No.23 at village Devmurti (Taluka and District : Jalna), belonging to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, the petition came to be disposed of, vide order dated 17th June 2010. It appears that subsequently, the measurement has been, in fact, carried out and thereafter the applicant has made an application on 5th August 2010 for getting a copy of the report of the measurement. Since inspite of making an application, a copy of the report is not received, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Application. 3. We have perused the application made by the petitioner, dated 5th August 2010, to the respondent no.2. The same has been duly received by the inward / outward Clerk in the office of respondent no.2. The only justification given by the respondent no.2, who is personally present in the Court, is that the said application was not brought to his notice. We find it difficult to accept the said statement. If the measurement was done on the basis of the statement made before this Court, the respondent no.2 was duty bound to supply copy of the report to the applicant. It was not even necessary to wait for an application from the applicant. (4) 4. In any case, when an application was made by the petitioner, to the respondent no.2, on 5th August 2010, at least thereafter, immediately a copy of report of the measurement ought to have been given to the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant further makes a statement that he had also given a copy of the said application in the office of the Government Pleader. At least thereafter, either the respondent no.2 should have given a copy of the report of the measurement to the petitioner, or the learned Government Pleader's office ought to have ensured that the assurance given before this Court was complied with. We find that the act of respondent no.2, in not giving a copy of the report, to the petitioner, is not justifiable at all. 5. We, therefore, direct the learned Assistant Government Pleader to supply a copy of report of the measurement to the learned Counsel for the applicant during course of the day. We also saddle exemplary costs on respondent no.2 which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees five thousand]. Needless to state, that the said costs are costs to be paid by the present incumbent in the office of the respondent no.2 from his own pocket and not the costs on the exchequer. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant (writ petitioner) graciously states that the petitioner is not interested in getting the costs and (5) suggests that the costs may be directed to be paid to the Library of Advocates' Association at this Bench. The respondent no.2 is, therefore, directed to pay the costs of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees five thousand] to the Library of Advocates' Association at this Bench, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to state, that if the costs are not deposited within the stipulated period and receipt thereof is not placed on record of the present proceedings, the Court would initiate suo motu proceedings for contempt against respondent no.2. 6. With the above directions, the Civil Application is disposed of. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca16659