1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.117/2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO1.58/2002 [ Alimoddin Fazroddin Lohar & another ..vs.. Municipal Council Umarkhed & 5 others] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.R. DONGAONKAR J. DATED : JULY 20, 2009. Heard Shri Kaptan, advocate for petitioner, Shri V.R. Choudhari advocate for respondent no. 1 to 5 and Shri Kothari, AGP for respondent no.6. The petitioners are seeking action for contempt of the order of this court dated 12.8.2005 in Second Appeal NO.158/2002 which reads thus: “In this view of the matter though I am dismissing the appeal, I make it clear by way of clarification that the rejection of mandatory injunction by the courts below would be operative vis a vis the area of land over which it is found that the appellants have committed encroachment and as such they are trespasser. This position is further made clear that the defendant has every right to take action against plaintiffs for getting possession of land admeasuring 12 x 12 feet as permissible in law. With this clarification, the appeal is dismissed is limine.” 2 According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondents no.1 to 5 have removed whole of the structure including the construction on the land admeasuring 12 x 12 feet, though it was protected by order in the second appeal. According to respondent no.1 to 5, said portion is demarcated of which photograph is produced at page 59.Respondent no.1 to 5 have no objection to place appellant in possession of the same. Learned counsel for the appellant has suggested that as the said portion may block the entry of the shopping complex, which is shown in the photograph, the appellant can be granted any alternative site to that extent. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 5 expressed inability. According to him, this was the portion of the land which was originally in possession of the appellant and therefore, appellants would be entitled for the possession of the same, in pursuance of the order of this court in the second appeal referred to above. As it appears that the same piece of land was in possession of the appellant and the respondent no.1 to 5 are still ready to give its possession to the appellant, the action for which this contempt petition is brought does not survive. Accordingly, the same is disposed of. Needless to say that whatever structure the appellant had on that land, appellant would be entitled to erect the same. JUDGE SMP