(1) CP-629.2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 629 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3805 OF 2018 Shirdi Nagar Panchayat Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents … Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. A.V. Hon a/w Mr. Harshvardhan Karad, Advocates for the petitioner. Mrs. U.S. Bhosale, A.G.P. for respondents - State. Mr. Ajinkya Kale, Advocate holding for Talekar and Associates for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Closed for order on : 05.08.2026 Pronounced on : 06.08.2026 Order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J. ) : 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents-land owners submits that the present contempt petition is based on the order dated 25 April 2018, wherein the present petitioner and respondents-landowners had undertaken not to carry out any physical development on the disputed open and amenity plots. He further added that the aforesaid order was only an interim order in original Writ Petition No.3805 of 2018 alongwith (2) CP-629.2018.odt connected Writ Petition No.2486 of 2018. He further submitted that vide order dated 04.07.2019 the aforesaid main Writ Petitions are finally disputed by this Court and even the said order was carried out upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and certain offer was given to the land owners for making representation to the Municipal Council, Shirdi to seek for alternate land. Learned counsel for the respondents-land owners thus submitted that when the main Writ Petition No.3805 of 2018 is already disposed of, then the order under contempt, which is only an interim measure, stood merged in the final order. 3. On the contrary, learned senior counsel Mr. V.D. Hon for contempt petitioner submits that even though there was certain compromise talks between the land owners and Municipal Council, Shirdi after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, but a separate petition is going on between them about the dispute regarding grant of alternate land. Learned senior counsel further submitted that despite the order under contempt, though as interim, the land owners have committed breach of that order by carrying out the activities on the disputed one plots. Thus, he opposed for disposing of the present contempt petition. (3) CP-629.2018.odt 4. It is significant to note that the order under contempt in this petition is in fact an interim order and on disposal of original Writ Petition No.3805 of 2018, now interim order does not survive. Even otherwise also, the dispute regarding open plots between the Municipal Council, Shirdi and the respondents-land owners is going on separately and when the order under contempt is not in existence on disposal of main petition, we are not inclined to entertain the present contempt petition by going into disputed facts between the parties. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of. We make it clear that disposal of this contempt petition will not be having any impact on the ongoing writ petition between the parties. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde