1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITIN NO. 104/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 991/2007 GIRIDHAR PANDURANG WANKHEDE ..versus.. GEETA WANJARI AND OTHERS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel for petitioner. Shri M.I.Dhatrak, , Counsel for respondent no.1 Shri Khubalkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2010. Heard. 2) The petitioner feels that the order dated July 23, 2008, in Writ Petition No. 991/07, is disobeyed by the respondents, as they failed to take action in accordance with law and hence the contempt. The order reads as under; Pursuance to order dated 11.06.2008, the Collector has prepared a Joint Measurement Report as directed and accordingly pursis dated 09.07.2008 is filed on record. In view of this, the concerned respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to take action in 2 accordance with law. Petition is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. 3) By communication dated 8.7.2008, it was informed about the measurements having carried concerning the plots or the property Survey No. 691, 646 and non coordination of accesses/ways in the lay- out. The Division Bench, as stated above, gave direction to the respondents to take action in accordance with law. The further approach of the respondents as communicated by the letter dated 26.2.2009, in response to the notice from the petitioner, it is informed in paragraph 3 that Municipal Council has already issued notice to Shri Pitambar Kharkate, the owner of Plot No.1 in lay-out No. 691, to demolish the construction by which the road coming from lay-out on land Survey No. 646 is blocked and in para 4, it is informed, the Municipal Council has already initiated the action for compliance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition 991/2007, dated 23.07.2009 and the petitioner herein was asked to withdraw the notice. 4) Taking these aspects into consideration, it cannot be said that there is any slumber on the part of the respondents in taking action in accordance with law. 5) The observations of the Division Bench by order dated April 9, 2010, in review petition, display, no 3 rights of the parties have been adjudicated upon by the order dated 23.7.2008, which needs reconsideration. At this stage, no disobedience of the order of the Court. I do not see any contempt. Consequently, the petition lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit