Bombay High Court

NANASAHEB JAYVANTRAO WAKLE AND OTHERSversusUDAYKUMAR GOURISHANKAR CHOUDHARI DISTRICT COLLECTOR AURANGABAD AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed as the petitioners have opted for an alternative remedy.

Summary

In a contempt petition filed by Nanasaheb Wakle and others against the District Collector, Aurangabad, the petitioners claimed that their land was affected by a road construction project. The State’s counsel presented an affidavit and a letter stating no additional land would be required. The petitioners, however, conducted their own measurement, which indicated that their land was indeed affected, and subsequently filed a separate writ petition seeking acquisition of the land and compensation. The Court observed that the petitioners had already pursued an alternative remedy for the same grievance. Consequently, the Court held that the contempt petition could not proceed and disposed of it.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt petition is maintainable when the petitioners have initiated an alternative remedy for the same grievance

Subjects

contempt of court
land acquisition
alternate remedy
jurisdiction
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37447-DB

                                                                                         120.20CP

                                                     1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           906 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.120 OF 2020
                                    IN WP/11645/2018

                          NANASAHEB JAYVANTRAO WAKLE & OTHERS
                                         VERSUS
                           UDAYKUMAR GOURISHANKAR CHOUDHARI
                         DISTRICT COLLECTOR AURANGABAD & OTHERS

                                                  ...
                          Advocate for the petitioners : Mr.S.M.Kshirsagar
                          AGP for Respondent-State : Mrs.M.N.Ghanekar
                                                  …

                                          CORAM :         SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                          VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                          DATE       :    18.08.2026
                 P.C. :


                 1]             The learned AGP by pointing out affidavit-in-reply

                 and letter from the respondent no.1 that they would not

                 require any additional land for construction of road. However,

                 the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions,

                 submits that after filing of this Petition, the petitioners, as

                 per direction of this Court, had carried out the measurement

                 at     their   own    expenses     and     the     report    of   the     said

                 measurement          clearly   indicated    that    the     lands   of     the

                 petitioners are affected by the work of respondent no.1.

                 However, he further added that the petitioners have already
                                                             120.20CP

                                 2

filed separate Writ Petition for direction to respondent no.1

for   acquiring    their   affected   lands   and     to   pay   the

compensation.



2]            Under such circumstances, it appears that the

petitioners have already initiated proceedings for getting

compensation in respect of their affected land. In view of the

same, nothing survives in this Contempt Petition since the

petitioners    have   already   chosen    alternate    remedy    as

aforesaid. As such, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]               [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
        JUDGE                              JUDGE


DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…