1 20-wp-1055-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1055 OF 2024 Govind Devrao Chaure VERSUS Dnyandev Sitaram Misal And Others ... Mr. S. A. Vaidya h/f Mr. A. R. Vaidya, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. D. M. Mane h/f Mr. M. M. Patil, Advocate for Respondent no.1 ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6760 OF 2025 IN WP/1055/2024 ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- . Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. At the outset I must record that the present Writ Petition as well as the prayers therein are as misconceived as the revision proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Additional Divisional Commisioner, out of which the Writ Petition has arisen. 2. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has filed one Regular Civil Suit No.389 of 2008 before the Civil Court seeking partition and separate possession, to which the respondents are party. The Civil Court negated the suit which 2026:BHC-AUG:39773 2 20-wp-1055-2024 constrained the petitioner to file Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2011 before the District Court. Upon hearing the parties, the First Appellate Court pleased to decree the suit and to allow the appeal. 3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached this Court vide Second Appeal No.105 of 2016 which ultimately came to be dismissed. Suffice to note, Civil Application St. No.23775 of 2016 for review is pending in this Court at the behest of the present respondents. In the mutation proceedings arising out of the execution proceedings taken up by the parties, the Tahsildar, Beed vide order dated 12.09.2016 recorded mutation in the name of the petitioner. 4. The said order was taken up by the present respondents before the Sub Divisional Officer, Beed vide case No.2016/ ROR/223. From the documents placed before me, it appears that the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 15.05.2018 kept the proceedings under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for brevity “MLR Code”) at the stage of sane die. It was recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer that the matter was kept on sane die stage on account of pendency of the Civil Application St. No.23775 of 2016. 3 20-wp-1055-2024 5. As against this order, the petitioner filed proceedings bearing no.2018/ROR/REV/155 before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. By recording that on numerous occasions the petitioner consistently failed to prosecute the proceedings, the then Additional Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 03.10.2019 dismissed the proceeding for want of prosecution. 6. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 251 of the MLR Code, by the petitioner for restoration of the dismissed proceedings. However, it appears that even this application was not cautiously prosecuted by the petitioner, this constrained the then Additional Divisional Commissioner to dismiss the said application for want of prosecution. 7. Thereafter, again, another application for restoration of the first restoration application was filed by the petitioner under Section 257 of the MLR Code. The Additional Divisional commissioner vide order dated 25.07.2023 rejected the said application observing that the petitioner at no point of time has seriously prosecuted any application. Hence, the impugned order dated 25.07.2026 came to be passed which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 4 20-wp-1055-2024 8. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Mr. D. M. Mane h/f Mr. M. M. Patil, learned Advocate has caused appearance for the respondents. 9. Mr. S. A. Vaidya h/f Mr. A. R. Vaidya, learned Advocate for the petitioner would fairly submit that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner to prosecute the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner; however, that was not an intentional attempt. He would submit that the then learned Advocate for the petitioner had met with an accident, and therefore could not attend the proceedings timely. He would submit that the second restoration application was filed by engaging another Advocate whereby it was sought to be explained that the proceedings were bonafide and were not negligently handled by the petitioner. He would submit that one last opportunity be given to the petitioner to agitate the issue before the Additional Commissioner for which petitioner is even ready to compensate the respondents by paying adequate costs. 10. Mr. Mane, learned Advocate for the respondents would submit that so long as Advocate’s personal difficulty is concerned, he may not have any objection. However, he would point out that the cause taken before the Additional 5 20-wp-1055-2024 Commissioner itself is not maintainable. He would refer to an order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer whereby the proceedings are already kept on sane die. Considering pendency of the Review petition, he would resist his temptation to argue the petition on merits, whereby a negligence is sought to be justified. In all fairness, Mr. Mane would submit that the present petition and the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner are misconceived. In fact, the petitioner ought to have prayed for continuation of the proceeding before the Sub Divisional Officer which later mainly kept on sane die. 11. Heard learned Advocates for both the parties at length. As I observed at the outset, the Writ Petition as also the proceedings before the Additional Divisional Commissioner are also misconceived. The proceedings are handled as negligently as it could be. However, so far as the main issue as highlighted by Mr. Mane is concerned, I refrain myself from commenting further as to how the petitioner had been negligent in handling the proceedings before the Additional Divisional Commissioner. 12. The issue of mutation has arisen out of Civil Proceedings. A civil dispute has now attained finality whereby 6 20-wp-1055-2024 the suit is decreed. Merely because the Civil Application for review is pending in this Court, that by itself will not operate as a stay to the findings recorded by the District Court. No Authority including the Revenue Authorities is precluded, prevented or supposed to wait for the result in the review proceedings. They are bound by the orders passed by the Civil Courts. 13. The law on this point is very much clear as is observed by this Court in the case of Meena A. Rizvi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors., reported at 2026 SCC Online Bom. 818. I also take note of Mr. Mane’s argument that his objection as regards to the execution is pending before the Tahsildar. May it be, in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the Sub Divisional Officer/respondent no.7 to conclude the proceedings in case no.2016/ROR/223 within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. 14. As far as the submission of Mr. Mane regarding his pending objection before the Tahsildar is concerned, the Sub Divisional Officer shall call the file from the Tahsildar and shall decide the same alongwith the present proceedings. To 7 20-wp-1055-2024 this, Mr. Vaidya, learned Advocate places no objection since it would be to avoid the complexity in the matter and multiplicity of litigation. 15. Suffice to note, the Sub Divisional Officer shall take into consideration the law prevailing in this field as is observed above. Suffice to observe, the proceedings filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner are nonest. The parties at consensus to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer on 11.09.2026. 16. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before the Sub Divisional Officer/respondent no.7 in the hearing of the matter. 17. In view of the above, costs of Rs.20,000/- is saddled on the petitioners which should be deposited in this Court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit on such costs, the respondents are entitled to withdraw the same without filing any separate Civil Application. 18. In terms of above, Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026