Bombay High Court
SALAUDDIN ALIMODDIN AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The contempt petition is disposed as there is no surviving claim after the State's compliance with the original order.
Summary
The petitioners, Salauddin Alimoddin and others, filed a contempt petition seeking enforcement of an earlier order directing the State to initiate acquisition proceedings, declare an award, and pay compensation within one year. The State filed an affidavit stating that it had complied with the directions by passing the award and that the government had sanctioned and disbursed the compensation to the Municipal Council, Beed. The court noted that the contempt petition had not been circulated since 2011 and presumed that the sanctioned amount had been paid to the petitioners. Consequently, the court found no remaining issue in the petition. The contempt petition was therefore disposed of as there was nothing left to adjudicate.
Issues considered
- What is the status of the contempt petition given the State's claim of compliance with the original contempt order?
Subjects
- contempt of court
- compliance with court order
- award and compensation
- petition disposal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43500
911 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 330 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 330 OF 2010
Salauddin Alimoddin S/o. Alimoddin And 4 Others
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And 3 Others
__________________________________________________________
• Adv. Jaybhay Bibhishan R. for the Petitioners -
Absent
• Mr. N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for State
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.]
1) None for the petitioners.
2) In the order under contempt, it was directed to
initiate the acquisition proceedings and declare the award
and pay compensation to the petitioners within one year
from the date of the order.
3) Respondent No. 4 – State has filed affidavit-in-
reply, wherein it is stated that subsequently the directions
were complied by passing the award and the Government
had also sanctioned the compensation amount and same
was given to the Municipal Council, Beed.
Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 2
911 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 330 OF 2010
4) The contempt petition has not been circulated
since 2011. It is presumed that the amount which was
sanctioned by the Government must have been disbursed
to the petitioners.
5) In view of the same, nothing survives in
the present contempt petition and the same stands
disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 2
Checking your session…