Mr. Prakash Kundlik Gaikwad v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Govt. Pleader

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15567 OF 2022 Mr. Prakash Kundlik Gaikwad

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Govt. Pleader

...Respondent

***** Ms. Jyotsna Kamble - Advocate for the Petitioner Smt. G. R. Raghuwanshi - AGP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM :

M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE :

27th MARCH 2026 P. C. :- 1.

The learned AGP states that the order breached is dated 26.02.2025 passed by this Court. The operative order reads thus :- (i) The respondent no. 1 through its competent/appropriate authority is hereby directed to take the necessary decision on the petitioner's plea with regard to the change/conversion of the tenure of the subject watan land from class - II to class - I, which is pending with the respondents, in accordance with law.

(ii) The above exercise shall be undertaken as expeditiously as Digitally signed by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2026.03.30 18:37:09 +0530 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR 1/3

possible not later than a period of 6 weeks from the date this order is made available to the said respondent authority and such decision so taken shall be conveyed to the petitioner.

(iii) All contentions of parties are expressly kept open. (iv) The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

2.

The learned AGP has produced on record a copy of the communication addressed by Collector to the Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. It is submitted that the guidance from the State of Maharashtra is awaited, as a result of which the order could not be complied with. It is submitted that there is no deliberate breach of order passed.

3.

It is pertinent to note that once this Court has passed an order, the same has to be complied within the stipulated period It is responsibility of the Respondents to ensure that the order passed by this Court is complied with.

4.

For any reason, if it is not possible to adhere the said time frame, Respondents ought to have preferred an appropriate application for extension of time showing sufficient cause. No such application has been preferred.

5.

The learned AGP, however, urged that in view of the 2/3

communication addressed by the Collector to the State of Maharashtra, a reasonable extension may be granted to comply with order passed by this Court.

6.

In such view of the matter, we are inclined to extend the time granted by this Court to take an appropriate decision in terms of the order dated 26.02.2025 within extended period of six weeks from today.

7.

Accordingly, the Contempt petition is disposed of. Liberty to apply for restoration, if the order is not complied with by then. (S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) 3/3