- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 153 OF 2007 IN CONTEMPT PETITION No. 304 of 2003 Ramchandra Krishnaji Kulkarni ... Applicant Vs. Babu Sattu Dhadas & Ors. ... Respondents *** None for the petitioner. Mr. S. G. Deshmukh, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. *** CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JULY 10, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the legal representatives of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that in view of pendency of this contempt petition, the land acquisition officer is not releasing the compensation to them and therefore, submitted that appropriate order in respect of following lands may be passed (i) Gat No. 108/ 2/1 to 2/8; (ii) Gat No. 11/ 1/1 to 1/7; (iii) Gat No. 109/ 2/1 to 2/7; - 2 - (iv) Gat No. 109/1; (v) Gat No. 112/ 1/1+2+3; (vi) Gat No. 108/1; (vii) Gat No. 110/ 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A (part); (viii) Gat No. 107 / 2/1 to 2/11; (ix) Gat No. 107/1 (part). (hereinafter referred to as the “said property”). 3. The present contempt petition is filed by the petitioner mainly against respondent Nos. 3 and 5, the Collector of Sangli and the State of Maharashtra for willful disobedience of the order dated 9th March 2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 480 of 1988. It is contention of the petitioner that said respondent Nos. 3 and 5 in disobedience of the aforesaid order effected mutation entry Nos. 9353 and 9354 on 31st March 2003. By the said writ petition the order of the Additional Commissioner of issuance of notice to the petitioner under section 16 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling & Holding) Act 1961, was challenged. It was case of the petitioner that he is in lawful possession of the said land and therefore, land cannot be considered as a surplus holding of the deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This Writ Petition was allowed in terms of prayer Clause (e), thereby setting aside the aforesaid show-cause notice. 4. The deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are admittedly owners of the said properties. They filed Special Civil Suit Nos. 46 of 1982 for possession of the same from the petitioner. Suit was - 3 - decreed by the trial Court and this decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1002 of 2000 as well as in Second Appeal No. 736 of 2003. 5. This decree was put in execution and the legal heirs of deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2 obtained possession of the suit property through Court. Meanwhile the suit lands were acquired by the State of Maharashtra for minor irrigation tank Ankalgi, by passing an award under section 11, and a notice was issued to the legal representatives of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Thus, rights of the legal heirs of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are crystallized and they are entitled for compensation for acquisition of the suit land by the Government. 7. In view of the facts stated above, I am satisfied that the petitioner has no right in the said property, much less any right in the compensation for acquisition thereof. I therefore, pass following order. ORDER The payment of compensation for acquisition of the suit property should not be refused to legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the ground of pendency of this contempt petition. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]