cp72.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 72 OF 2011 Vinod s/o Devidas Kale .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. P. D. Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1 The Division Bench of this court while deciding Writ Petition no. 2283/2010 directed the respondent – authority to decide the application tendered by the petitioner on 15-1-2010, within a period of four months from the date of the order and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner. It was also observed by the Division Bench in the order that if the petitioners are found entitled to rental compensation then the amount be determined and paid to the petitioners. cp72.11 2 2 An affidavit in reply has been presented by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Jalna. It is contended by the respondent that the decision has been rendered by the respondent – authority on 28-3-2011 and the petitioners are held dis-entitled to receive rental compensation as claimed by them. It is recorded in the order that section 4 notification in respect of the acquired land was issued in the year 1996 and thereafter the land was acquired. Compensation in respect of acquired land has been paid in the year 1999. Rental compensation for the land for the period between 15-8-1996 to 1-11-1999 amounting to Rs. 2,32,867/- has been paid to the concerned agriculturist prior to 30-12-2009. In this view of the matter, the agriculturists / petitioners are not entitled to receive compensation for a period anterior to the year 1996. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision rendered by the respondent – authority cannot be said to be in proper compliance of the directives issued by this court in writ petition. It is to be noted that assuming the decision rendered by the respondent – authority even if is not to the satisfaction of the petitioner, the petitioner may avail of appropriate remedy for challenging the same. This court while dealing with cp72.11 3 the contempt petition cannot evaluate correctness or otherwise of the decision rendered by the respondent. Considering this aspect of the matter, instant contempt petition does not call for any interference and stands rejected. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb