Gurunath Dattatraya Nadgonde And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9519 Bom

                                                        1/3                      32cp291-22



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2022
                                                         IN
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 13427 OF 2017

                       Gurunath Dattatray Nadgonde and Ors.                ... Petitioners
                           Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                   ... Respondents

                                                        ...
                       Ms. Kanchan Phatak, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                       Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                       Mr. Vilas Tapkir, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                                        ...

                                                CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
                                                        SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

                                                DATE    : 20 SEPTEMBER 2022
                       P.C. :

By this petition, the petitioners are praying that the

respondents be punished for contempt for committing willful breach

of the order dated 15 October 2018 passed in Writ Petition

No.13427 of 2017. The Writ Petition No.13427 of 2017 was

disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.A.Sayed

Digitally & Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ), accepting statements made on behalf of signed by SANJAY SANJAY ASARAM ASARAM MANDAWGAD MANDAWGAD Date:

2022.09.23 15:52:27 the Acquiring Body - Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development +0530

Corporation (MKVDC). One of the statements made which was

sanjay_mandawgad 2/3 32cp291-22

accepted by the Court that the ground rent will be paid, which reads

as under:

"4. I say that, the ground rent due to the petitioner shall be paid to the petitioners as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of order of this Hon'ble Court."

2. In the Contempt Petition, the petitioners have contended

that though the ground rent has been paid to the petitioners, the

same is not as per the Government Resolution and it has to be

calculated at the rate of 8% on the final Award. The petitioners have

sought to question the calculation made by Respondent No.1 and

have stated that the ground rent offered by Respondent No.1 is

contrary to law and, it is on this basis that the Court is called upon to

punish the respondents for contempt.

3. It is settled position in law that in contempt jurisdiction,

Court does not embark upon the issues which have not been decided

in the original order and the enquiry is restricted to ascertain as to

whether there is willful breach or contempt of the judgment and

order. The Writ Petition was disposed of on the affidavit of the

Respondent-Acquiring Body that the ground rent as payable to the

petitioners as due would be paid within a time stipulated therein.

sanjay_mandawgad
                                    3/3                       32cp291-22

There is no adjudication as to the exact quantum. According to the

respondents, what is the due to the petitioner is paid. If the

petitioner is not satisfied with the amount or questions the

calculations, the appropriate course of action for the petitioners is to

institute proceeding to challenge the calculation made by the

respondent-Acquiring Body. This adjudication cannot be done in the

contempt jurisdiction.

4. The Contempt Petition, is accordingly disposed of.

( SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J. )

sanjay_mandawgad