1 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. 180/2008 Shri V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.N.Nagargoje,Adv.for petitioner. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 18/11/2009. 1] This petition complains about willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 9/7/07 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3046/90. Operative part of this order is reproduced below : Order of the Tahsildar is maintained. If some allottee is dispossessed, it shall be the duty of the District Collector, Jalgaon and the officers concerned to see that rightful allottees shall be inducted in the possession of respective piece of land. 2] The order of the Tahsildar referred to above, was the order 2 dated 15/3/89. The xerox copy of the said order is produced on record by learned senior counsel Shri Dixit. As per this order, the petitioner was allotted land out of Gat No.50. In view of the aforesaid order, it is contention of learned Senior Counsel Shri Dixit that petitioner should have been placed in possession of plot no.50 by the District Collector, Jalgaon and the officer concerned. However, this has not been done and therefore, present Contempt Petition has been filed. 3] The affidavit dated 12/8/08 has been filed by the District Collector, Jalgaon, who is respondent no.3 herein. In para 12 of the affidavit, it is stated that the order passed by this Court on 9/7/07 in Writ Petition No.3046/90 is obeyed and the allottees are fixed as per the order of allotment dated 15/3/89 passed by the then Tahsildar/Additional Land Tribunal Erandol,District Jalgaon and they are also physically put in possession of the piece of land accordingly. Copies of the allotment orders and the possession receipts are placed on record. The order of allotment and possession receipt however, indicate that the 3 petitioner has been put in possession of gat no.19/2 having the area of 2 Acres at Utran, Ta. Erandol. This in my view, is contrary to the undisputed fact that, by an order dated 15/3/89 passed by Tahsildar, the land was allotted to the petitioner from gat no.50 and in terms of the order passed by this Court on 9/7/07, the District Collector, Jalgaon was expected to put the petitioner in possession of plot no.50. However, the petitioner has accepted the possession of plot no.19/2, as has been allotted to him in variance of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 15/3/89. The complaint of contempt therefore, in that respect cannot be entertained. 4] Shri Dixit, learned senior counsel for petitioner assisted by Shri Nagargoje submits that the petitioner as well as other allottees have not been actually put in possession of their respective shares and the possession bond and agreement bond which are relied upon by the respondent Tahsildar, have been obtained from them, without putting them in physical possession of the plots. The petitioner having signed all these documents 4 indicates delivery of possession to him in respect of plot no.19/2. It is not possible to enter into the controversy, if at all is there in terms of possession of the land allotted to the share of the petitioner or similarly situated persons. At any rate, there is no question of wilful or intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 5] In view of above, I do not find any substance in the instant Contempt Petition. The same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is desirous of taking any other appropriate proceedings for securing possession of plot no.19/2 or 50, then any observations made by this Court, which are based upon prima facie case, would not come in the way of the petitioner. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/cp180-08