{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.187 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1879 OF 1988 Vishwanath s/o Tukaram Narwade and others Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 08th December, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The Division Bench, on 22.06.2001, while allowing the writ petition in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c), directed the Collector to conclude the process of regularization within a period of two months from that day (22.06.2001). 3 The grievance of the petitioners-encroachers is that their encroachment on the Government land, may be a pasture (gairan) or forest land, is flowing from way back in 1972 or in some cases 1965, has not been genuinely considered by the {2} Respondents-State authorities, unreasonable excuses are put forward to avoid contempt and a false report is tendered by the State authorities. 4 Mr.Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, took me to the report of Talathi and other reports to indicate about the occupation of respective petitioners as encroachers on the Government land and their entitlement for regularization of such encroachment. He reiterates, the report of the officers is camouflage to avoid rigour and brunt of the contempt. 5 Learned A.G.P., taking recourse to the affidavit of Collector, Aurangabad and Principal Secretary, Forest Department, submits that the encroachment of the petitioners is not within the bracket of permissible limits to stake claims on Government Resolutions or to have umbrella of different Government policies. Learned A.G.P. also submits that the land is not pasture (gairan), but it is a forest land for which different para meters for regularization, which are by virtue of directives of Central Government, needs to be vividly observed. On 10.06.2005, the Committee has paid visit to the sites, allegedly asserted by the petitioners, and found disentitlement of the petitioners to stake claims on the Government property. 6 The threadbare submissions of Mr.Sakolkar, learned {3} Counsel for the petitioners, though can be appreciated, however, this Court, taking up Contempt Petitions, has its own limitations. This Court is not called upon to ponder and advert to the merits in the contentions of the petitioners. The Division Bench, by its order dated 22.06.2001, directed the authorities to consider the regularization and as the reports of several authorities display a portrait of disentitlement of the petitioners to stake they are claiming, consequently, this Court is not in a position to observe and record assertively that there is breach or disobedience of the order dated 22.06.2001 of the Division Bench by the State authorities. The so called illegalities or irregularities in the report of the authorities are to be addressed before an altogether different forum and not before this Court taking up Contempt matters. 7 Consequently, Contempt Petition stands dismissed. No costs. K.U.CHANDIWAL JUDGE adb/cp18709