1 144.wp.7957.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 7957 OF 2026 Prashant Madhukarrao Joshi .Vs. Naib Tahsildar, Nagpur and another _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Ms Kadambini Meshram, Advocate for the petitioner/s CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : 05 th OCTOBER , 2026 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that respondents have absolutely no authority to pass the impugned order by which the Executive Magistrate has directed the police station officers to provide necessary assistance for taking possession of property in the light of order passed in the Rent Control proceedings under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act of 1999’). It is urged that Government Resolution dated 07/08/2023 states that if the appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Minister then the subordinate authorities shall keep the proceedings in abeyance. 3. With the help of learned counsel for the petitioner we have gone through the record of the case. 4. Undisputed fact in the present petition is that the petitioner was given premises on Leave and License by 2026:BHC-NAG:13213 2 144.wp.7957.2026.odt respondent No. 2. Since the possession was not handed over to the respondent No. 2, after expiry of License period, the proceedings were initiated by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under the Act of 1999 in the year 2013-2014 and order to hand over possession was passed on 10/03/2015. 5. The suit filed by the petitioner bearing Special Civil Suit No. 368 of 2014 for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed, (which was outcome of the alleged fraud played by respondent No.2), was also dismissed. Revision application under Section 44 of the Act of 1999 against the order dated 10/03/2015 met the same fate on 26/12/2022. Petition challenging the said order was dismissed by this Court on 13/03/2023. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) diary No. 13406 of 2024 has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue the pending litigation. At every stage, the respondent No. 2 succeeded including before the Hon’ble Apex Court also. 7. Thus, petitioner is not allowing respondent No. 2 to enjoy fruits of eviction order since the year 2015. The challenge to order dated 10/03/2015 and 26/12/2022 has already failed in earlier round of litigation. 8. So far as contention of the petitioner that the Government Resolution dated 07/08/2023 would govern the field, suffice it to say that said Government Resolution relates to the proceedings filed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue 3 144.wp.7957.2026.odt Code, 1966 and not to the proceedings filed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 9. It is in this background, we are of the opinion that since the issue regarding the status of the parties is already decided by the trial Court also and in earlier round of litigation the petitioner has failed upto Hon’ble Apex Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs. [RAJNISH R. VYAS, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 19:01:51