1 cp186.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Contempt Petition No. 186 of 2010 IN Writ Petition No. 4387 of 2007 Bhalchandra Vasudeo Bhaskare & ors. ....Appellants v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mrs. Geeta Mulekar for the appellants. Mr. R.M.Patne-AGP for the respondents. CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. 8th November, 2011 PC: The Contempt Petitioner is alleging the breach of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application No. 1967/2008 in Writ Petition No. 4387/2007 on 18th October, 2008. Initially on presentation of the writ petition, while granting rule this Court restrained the respondents from disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the suit land. The application was tendered by the respondent-State seeking modification of the order. This Court while disposing of the application has passed following order:- “ Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that they are in possession of the land but the applicants claim that the land was acquired as early as in the year 1954 and it is submitted that the award was declared on 20th July, 1966. The respondents were not the owners of the land but were the tenants of the land. There was litigation going on between the owners and the tenants but the possession of land was taken and buildings were constructed by the acquiring department over it. 2 cp186.10.sxw In this view of the matter, the order dated 4th December, 2007 passed in writ petition No. 4387 of 2007 is modified to the extent that the parties shall maintain status quo. The civil application is disposed of accordingly.” 2. It is the allegation of the contempt petitioner that the respondent authorities are permitting encroachers to occupy the disputed property and thus are violating the order of status-quo passed by this Court on 18th October, 2008. 3. The Counsel appearing for the Contempt Petitioner has invited my attention to two different maps drawn by Surveyor appointed by the Government and has contended that new encroachments have taken place over the disputed property. The respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply sworn by one Shahaji B.Nimbalkar as well as one Ramchanra S. Shinde. The respondents have categorically denied that they have permitted commitment of encroachment by the third party over the suit property. It is the contention of the respondents that unauthorised structures are beyond the boundary of the disputed property. It is in substance averred by the respondents that the officers of the Government have not willfully permitted the encroachers to occupy the disputed property. Thus, there is no willful disobedience of order of status-quo passed by this Court. 4. The question as to whether the encroachers are within the boundary of disputed property or outside the compound wall is a question of fact. The substantive writ petition presented by the petitioner is pending for final disposal. The respondents have raised a defence that the disputed property has already been acquired by the State Authorities in 1954 and that the petitioners do not have any right, title or entitlement in relation to the property. On perusal of the petition as well affidavit-in-reply tendered by the respondents, I 3 cp186.10.sxw am satisfied that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 1967 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 4387 of 2007. 5. The Contempt Application is devoid of substance, hence, stands dismissed. The notice issued by this Court stands discharged. (R.M.BORDE, J)