cp225.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 225 OF 2010 Sanjay s/o Shesharao Naikwade & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. G.S. Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24 th MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1 This court while disposing of Writ Petition no. 1706/2007 issued directions to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner for payment of rental compensation and for payment of statutory benefits under section 23(1a) and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, within six months from the date of passing of the order. 2 Respondents have filed affidavit in rely and it is stated therein that the cp225.10 2 representation has been decided as directed by this court and the amount payable towards rental compensation has been determined. It is also stated in the affidavit that the amount so determined has been paid to the petitioners. Learned AGP for the respondents also states that the statutory benefit receivable by the petitioners under section 23(1a) and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act has been paid to them. In this view of the matter, the direction issued by this court while disposing of writ petition has been complied with by the respondents. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the amount of rental compensation paid by the respondent is not in accordance with the demand made by the concerned petitioners. It is contended that the date of taking over of the possession has been wrongly determined by the Collector and the amount arrived at towards rental compensation is correct. It is contended that the disputed land has been taken in possession much prior to 4-6-1999 and as such the petitioners are entitled to receive rental compensation from the date of dispossession, which is of the year 1995. It is open for the petitioners to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law, if they desire for claiming cp225.10 3 additional amount towards rental compensation. So far as instant contempt petition is concerned, same does not deserve any consideration and stands dismissed. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb