Bombay High Court

SADASHIVRAO VITHALRAO AHERversusS J KOCHE ANDO RS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was disposed of, and no further rental compensation was payable to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition in 2011 seeking rental compensation ordered under a contempt direction. The respondent Collector filed an affidavit stating that compensation had already been paid under the award of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, specifically under Sections 23 and 34, and that no further rental compensation was due under Government Resolutions. The court noted that the petition had not been circulated since 2011, indicating a loss of interest by the petitioner. Considering the affidavit and the inaction, the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to additional rental compensation. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to rental compensation despite an earlier award under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the contempt petition should proceed given the lapse of time and lack of prosecution.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 11, 23, 34

Subjects

contempt
rental compensation
Land Acquisition Act
delay
petition dismissed

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42238

                                                                        324.11CP

                                               1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        902 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2011
                           IN WRIT PETITION NO.4383 OF 2007

                             SADASHIVRAO VITHALRAO AHER
                                          VERSUS
                                   S.J.KOCHE & OTHERS
                                             ...
                         AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.A.S.Shinde
                         Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.P.P.Dama
                                             ...
                                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                     DATE     :    10.09.2026


                 ORDER : [PER : VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.]


                 1]         In the order under contempt, the directions were

                 given to pay rental compensation.



                 2]         The respondent no. 1 Collector has filed affidavit-

                 in-reply wherein it is stated that in the award under Section

                 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation is paid under

                 Section 23 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the

                 present petitioner is not entitled to get again rental

                 compensation as per the Government Resolutions.
                                                        324.11CP

                               2

3]         Otherwise also, the petition is not circulated after

2011. It seems that due to passage of time, the petitioner has

lost interest in prosecuting the contempt petition.



4]         In view of the same, the Contempt Petition is

disposed of.



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

DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…