1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 239/2008 IN W.P.NO. 2187/1987 (DECIDED) (The A.P.M.C., Sindi Railway VERSUS Rajendra Pandurangji Kanfade & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Subhash Paliwal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2009. By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberately disregarding the observations and directions made by the Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 19/27.06.2008 in Writ Petition No. 2187/ 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through paragraph 67 of the judgment dated 19/27.06.2008, wherein the Court categorically observed that there is no power in the Special Land Acquisition Officer to treat the acquisition proceedings as 2 lapsed. The Court further observed that it was not possible to countenance that the entire proceedings was vitiated or non-est, keeping in mind the scheme of the enactment in question. The Court held that the communication issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer informing the petitioner herein that the land acquisition proceedings would lapse in the absence of making the deposit of compensation amount was illegal and beyond the scope and power of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to treat the acquisition proceedings as lapsed. It was brought to the notice of this Court that when the writ petition came up for admission before the Court on 16.10.1987, the High Court granted interim stay. The said order was, however, modified by subsequent order dated 22.12.1988 and the Court restricted it to the stay of possession only. According to the petitioner, the period of two years would expire on 25/26.11.2009 and in such circumstances, the action on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to issue a communication 3 dated 01.10.2008 reiterating the demand of depositing the compensation amount, failing which, the land acquisition proceedings would not be proceeded further, would be in gross contempt of the directions issued by the Court in the judgment dated 19/27.06.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the Division Bench has already held in the judgment dated 19/27.06.2008 that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not have jurisdiction to issue the notice to the aforesaid effect and once having held so, the issuance of similar notice/demand by the communication dated 01.10.2008 clearly showed that the respondent was guilty of gross contempt. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, has presented the affidavit of the respondent no.1 to the Court, today. The same is accepted on record. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the respondent no.1 is ready to withdraw the letter dated 01.10.2008 as the issuance of the same was the mistake on the part of the respondent 4 no.1. Since the respondent no.1 has tendered an unconditional apology to the Court and has undertaken to withdraw the communication dated 01.10.2008, which was issued in view of the mistake on the part of respondent no.1, it is necessary to drop the proceedings against the respondents in the interest of justice. It appears that the respondents have wasted considerable time by issuing the communication dated 01.10.2008 and not continuing the land acquisition proceedings since then. The respondent no.1, who is present in the Court today, makes a statement that the land acquisition proceedings would be completed and the award would be passed before 25.10.2009. In the result, the contempt proceedings against the respondents are dropped in view of the statement made by the respondent no.1 that the communication dated 01.10.2008 would be withdrawn and the acquisition proceedings would be completed and the award would be passed before 25.10.2009. 5 The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE