Bombay High Court
ABHISHEK VIJAY BHAGATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that substantial compliance with the court's direction negated the existence of contempt.
Summary
Petitioner Abhishek Vijay Bhagat filed a contempt petition alleging that the State of Maharashtra failed to complete a revenue survey of village Burhanagar by the court‑ordered deadline of 15 September 2023. The respondent State, through its AGP, submitted an affidavit stating that the survey was completed by 24 July 2026, albeit with some disputed survey numbers that were pending resolution in this Court and the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the delayed compliance constituted aggravated contempt. The Court examined the affidavit and noted that the majority of the survey had been completed, and the remaining disputes were being addressed separately. Concluding that the order had been substantially complied with, the Court held that no contempt had occurred and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Did the State of Maharashtra's delayed completion of the revenue survey constitute contempt of court?
- Is substantial compliance with a court order sufficient to defeat a contempt petition?
Subjects
- contempt of court
- revenue survey
- court order compliance
- civil procedure
- substantial compliance
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39850-DB
936 cp 342-26 .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
936 CONT. PETITION NO. 342 OF 2026
IN WP/1237/2022
ABHISHEK VIJAY BHAGAT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY
...
Mr. Satyajeet Dixit H/F Mr. Kothari Pratik Prakash, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Ms. Uma S. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent-State
…
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
Date : 01/09/2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard.
2. Though learned counsel holding for Mr. Kothari seeks time on account
of the unavailability of Mr. Kothari, but learned AGP, by pointing out the
affidavit-in-reply, submits that the order alleged to have been disobeyed
directed the respondents to conduct the revenue survey of village
Burhanagar by 24/07/2026. The said survey has been completed.
3. Learned counsel holding for Mr. Kothari submits that this is an
aggravated form of contempt, as the revenue survey of village Burhanagar
was not completed on or before 15/09/2023, as directed by this Court and
therefore, seeks initiation of appropriate contempt proceedings against the
respondents.
VS Maind/ Page|1
936 cp 342-26 .
4. However, learned AGP submits that due to some dispute concerning
certain survey numbers of the said village, the direction could be complied
with only belatedly. According to her, certain disputes were pending
before this Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore,
excluding two or three survey numbers, the remaining survey has been
completed. The said position is also stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by
the respondent.
5. In view of the above, it appears that the order alleged to have been
disobeyed has been substantially complied with. Therefore, nothing
survives in the present petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands
disposed of.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
VS Maind/ Page|2
Checking your session…