456.2012CP 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 4 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 456 OF 2012 IN WP/5983/2011 PUNLAL SHIVLAL DHANAWAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS ... AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. N.B. Patil Advocate for respondent no.3 : Mr. B.R. Survase CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ. DATE : 15.09.2026 ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.): 1. None for the petitioner. 2. With the passage of time, it is presumed that the petitioner must have received the rental compensation. 3. Even otherwise, the petition is not even circulated from 2013. Thus, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner must have been redressed. 4. In view of the above, the contempt petition is disposed of with liberty that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of amount determined by respondent, it would be open for the petitioner to agitate the grievance by availing the appropriate remedy under law. [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE] JUDGE JUDGE sga 2026:BHC-AUG:42519