8-WP16128-2025.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16128 OF 2025 Kisan Dagdu Bhor Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Representative 1. Alka Kisan Bhor & Ors ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Sub- Divisional Officer & Ors …Respondents Mr. Sanjay Shinde, for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant Darandale, for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Smt. M. S. Srivastav, AGP for the State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 26th May, 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Junnar-Ambegaon Sub-Division, Manchar, District – Pune, whereby the revision application preferred by respondent Nos.2 to 4 against an order dated 9th March, 2023 passed by the Tahsildar Ambegaon in Rasta Case No.50/2021 under the provisions of Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906, came to be allowed and the said order was set aside. 1/4 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.29 14:57:06 +0530 8-WP16128-2025.DOC 3. By the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the respondent therein, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, to remove the impediment purportedly caused in the respondent Nos.2 and 3’s access to their agricultural land. 4. It appears that, the revision application was preferred on 31st July, 2023. During the pendency of the revision application, respondent therein – the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, passed away on 26th September, 2024. However, without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, the Sub-Divisional Officer decided the revision and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. It was, inter alia, recorded that despite adequate opportunity having been given to the respondent, the latter did not file any written submission or canvassed submissions before the Sub-Divisional Officer. 5. Evidently, the respondent in the revision application had passed away before the Sub-Divisional Officer took up the revision for hearing and final disposal. The impugned order came to be passed against a party who was dead and consequently the proceeding had abated. 6. In these circumstances, without delving into the merits of the matter, this Court considers it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the revision application 2/4 8-WP16128-2025.DOC back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for a decision afresh in accordance with law. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners – the legal representatives of the deceased respondent in the revision, submits that the petitioners have no objection to set aside the abatement and hear the revision application afresh. 8. The impugned order stands quashed and set aside. 9. The abatement of the revision application also stands set aside. 10. The revision application stands restored to the file of Sub- Divisional Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 11. The respondents shall carry out the necessary amendment in the revision application before the Sub-Divisional Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. 12. The parties, including the petitioners, shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 26th October, 2026. 13. The Sub-Divisional Officer is requested to make an endeavour to hear and decide the revision application as 3/4 8-WP16128-2025.DOC expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of four months thereafter. 14. All contentions of all the parties are expressly kept open. 15. The petition stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4