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 2026:BHC-AUG:39850-DB 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