Bombay High Court
MR. PRAKASH KUNDLIK GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GOVT. PLEADER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The Court extended the time for compliance by six weeks and disposed of the contempt petition.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay had earlier ordered, on 26 February 2025, that the State of Maharashtra decide within six weeks on the petitioner’s request to change the classification of a watan land from class‑II to class‑I and communicate the decision. The State failed to comply within the stipulated period and did not file an application for extension, leading the petitioner to file a contempt petition. The State argued that it was awaiting guidance from the Collector and that there was no deliberate breach. The Court held that the State should have sought an extension and, in the interest of justice, granted an additional six‑week period from the date of the contempt hearing to comply. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed, with liberty to apply for restoration if the order remains unfulfilled.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Maharashtra is in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's order within the prescribed time
- Whether the Court should grant an extension of time for compliance with its order
Subjects
- contempt of court
- order compliance
- extension of time
- watan land conversion
- high court
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
14. CP 658 of 2025.doc
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.
Digitally
(ii) The above exercise shall be undertaken as expeditiously as
signed by
SEEMA
SEEMA KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
YELKAR Date:
2026.03.30
18:37:09
+0530
Seema 1/3
14. CP 658 of 2025.doc
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
Seema 2/3
14. CP 658 of 2025.doc
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.)
Seema 3/3
Checking your session…