1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 253 OF 2007. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5431 OF 2006. Bhagwan Dadaba Dahiphale ...Petitioner . VERSUS. The state of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents. Mr.D.R.Jaybhar,Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs.R.K.Ladda,A.G.P.for respondents Mr.S.T.Shelke,Advocate respondentno.4. (CORAM : P.R.BORKAR,J ) DATE : 10thSeptember,2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.D.R.Jaybhar,Advocate for Petitioner, Mrs. R. K.Ladda, A.G.P.for respondents and Mr. S. T. Shelke, Advocate respondentno.4. 2. Mr.D.R.Jaybhar,Advocate pointed out that the order passed by this Court on 3rd August,2006 in Writ Petition No. 5431 of 2006, this Court has given direction in para no. 4,as under ”We disose of the Writ petition by directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representaton of the petitioner for rental compensation on its own merits in accordance with scheme promulated by the Supreme Court 2 in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Maimuma Banu and others reported in 2003 AIR SCW 4202. In order to expedite the hearing we direct petitioner to remain present before respondents no.3 on 21st August,2006 at about 11.30 a.m.with certified coy of this order. Respondent nos 2 and 3 shall ensure that the cliam is decide don merits within a period of 4 months from 21st August,2006.” 3. The affidavit in reply is filed by the respondent no. 4, the letter dated 15.11.2007 is produced. The said letter would show that the rental comepnsation is actually fixed and not only that, but by aforesaid letter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer Ahmadnagar was directed to pay the amount. In reply affidavit para No.3 it is mentioned that the Deputy Engineer of the office of respondent no.4 had approached to petitioner on 20.11.2007 for making payment but the petitioner refused to accept. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the contempt petiton has no merit. The learned Advocate Mr. Jaybhar submitted that the amount is not properly calculated and less amount is fixed as rental compensation. He may agitate the question before apprpriate authority. Such question can not be considered in the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. 4. It is, however, made clear that whenever the contempt petitioner visits to the office of respondent no.4 the amount, which is already calculated and payable to him, be paid. ( P.R.BORKAR, J. ) MTK/cp.253.07 3