wp-10019.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10019 OF 2025 1) Dastgir Husain Shaikh, 2) Ashpak Mohammad Hanif Momin, Both are R/o-Ganesh Nagar, Husainpura, Dharashiv, District-Dharashiv. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The District Collector, Dharashiv, District Collector Office, Dharashiv, 3) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dharashiv Sub-Divisional Office, Dharashiv, District-Dharashiv, 4) The Tahsildar, Dharashiv, Tahsil Office at Dharashiv, District-Dharashiv, 5) The Circle Officer, Dharashiv City, Taluka and District-Dharashiv, 6) The Village Revenue Officer, Dharashiv, Village Revenue Office, at Dharashiv, District-Dharashiv. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Satish P. Dhobale Advocate for Petitioners. Ms. S.S. Joshi, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos. 1 to 5. ... 2025:BHC-AUG:32175 wp-10019.25 2 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 20th NOVEMBER, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] : 1. Issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 5. Learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. There is no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.6. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3. The petitioner No.1 contended that he is the bona fide purchaser of plot No.17, admeasuring 133.87 sq. meters through a registered sale deed dated 27th July 1987. He had purchased it from one Salimunnisa Begam Hanif Momin and petitioner No.2 is legal heir of deceased Salimunnisa Begam Hanif Momin. It appears that proceedings under Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short “MLR Code”) were undertaken before the Naib Tahsildar, Dharashiv and by order dated 10th January 2025, that application filed by the present petitioner No.1 came to be allowed. It was directed that the mutation be taken in the record of rights and corrections be made. It appears wp-10019.25 3 that thereafter present petitioner No.1 had made application in view of the said decision. In the meanwhile, it also appears that the contesting party had approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dharashiv by filing Appeal on 21st February 2025. According to the petitioners, the said Appeal is still pending. The present petitioners then approached respondent No.2 – Collector, Dharashiv with an application dated 20th March 2025, thereby stating that the concerned authority i.e. Village Revenue Officer, Dharashiv is not implementing the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Dharashiv. The present petitioners also approached the Sub Divisional Officer on 18th March 2025, for implementation of the order dated 10th January 2025, passed by Naib Tahsildar. However, by order dated 20th June 2025, which is under challenge, respondent No.2 has passed following order :- ^^vkns’k 1½ [kjsnh ns.kkj fdaok ?ks.kkj ;kauh vko’;drsuqlkj l{ke izkf/kdkjh ;kapsdMs nLr pqd nq:Lr (Rectification Deed) d:u ?;koh- 2½ uk;c rglhynkj] /kkjkf’ko ;kapk fnukad 10-01-2025 pk vkns’k jn~n let.;kr ;srks- uk;c rglhynkj] /kkjkf’ko ;kauk xq.koRrkiw.kZ fudky ns.;klaca/kh lDr let ns.;kr ;koh-^^ 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that when the substantial Appeal was pending, respondent No.2 ought not wp-10019.25 4 to have set aside the order dated 10th January 2025 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Dharashiv. 5. Learned AGP has tried to submit that in the revisional jurisdiction respondent No.2 can set aside the order. Herein this case the reasons have been assigned. 6. The first and foremost fact to be noted is that the petitioners had filed the application before respondent No.2 contending that since the Village Revenue Officer, who was supposed to implement the order passed by Naib Tahsildar passed under Section 155 of the MLR Code, has not taken any action and therefore, departmental inquiry should be initiated. Now, while considering this application, it appears that respondent No.2 has allegedly exercised his revisional powers. It also appears that respondent No.2 had not taken note of the fact that the other side i.e. who was contesting the matter before Naib Tahsildar, had approached the Sub-Divisional Officer under the statutory Appeal. If the statutory Appeal is provided, then the revisional Court should not interfere. Respondent No.2 has tried to justify the act of Village Revenue Officer by giving reasons. Now, whether the application that was initially made by the petitioners under Section 155 of the MLR Code was clerical wp-10019.25 5 error or not, can be decided in the Appeal. But the revisional Court i.e. respondent No.2 has given reasons and given direction that rectification deed should be got executed by the concerned authorities. 7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that when the substantial Appeal was pending, revisional Court i.e. respondent No.2 ought not to have exercised the jurisdiction and ought not to have set aside order dated 10th January 2025 passed by Naib Tahsildar. 8. We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 20th June 2025 passed by respondent No.2 in File No.dz- 2025@eglwy@tekcanh 1@dkfo&368, is hereby set aside. We direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub-Division, Dharashiv before whom the Appeal has been filed, i.e. 2025/ROR/A-60, between Sattar Gafur Shaikh and others vs. Dastagir Husain Shaikh and others, dated 21st February 2025, to proceed further and the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sub-Division, Dharashiv to decide the said Appeal on its own merits, within a period of FOUR MONTHS from today. [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/NOV25