(1) 31 wp 3354-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3354 OF 2025 Devidas S/o. Narayan Tirke And Another VERSUS The Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim And Others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.B. Gawali, Advocate for petitioners Ms M.R. Kavimandan, AGP for respondent/State CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 29.09.2026 This Court on 17.08.2026, by referring to earlier order dated 12.03.2026, observed that, even though an earlier order filed with the petition passed by the Tahsildar is unreasoned one, subsequently a reasoned order seems to have been passed. By way of said order, an affidavit was directed to be filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, as also the Tahsildar. Accordingly, affidavits are filed by the said authorities. In the affidavit of the Tahsildar, she has emphatically stated that she has passed a reasoned order on 28.02.2024, which was accompanied with operative part of the order. The controversy stems from a fact that the petition was filed on a premise that no reasoned order is passed, which is subsequently sought to be rectified by showing that a reasoned order is passed, in fact, on the very same day, i.e. 28.02.2024. (2) 31 wp 3354-2025 2. Be that as it may, the Sub-Divisional Officer in a Revision under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act has confirmed the said order. 3. I have gone through the so called operative part, which is at page No. 49 of the petition. The said order only records the operative portion, thereby allowing the application of the original applicant, i.e. the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein. 4. It can also be seen from page No. 50, which is an order of injunction under Section 21, Sub-section (2), that a certified copy of the said order was obtained on 02.04.2024, wherein only the operative portion was issued. Now, by way of an affidavit, it is emphatically stated that the reasoned order along with operative order was passed on one and the same day. The Sub-Divisional Officer, in pursuance to the order of this Court, has also filed an affidavit shifting the blame on the petitioner that it was the petitioner who has filed only the operative order of the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Tahsildar. 5. Be that as it may, Prima facie, it reveals that the Tahsildar Risod, is endeavoring herself in an exercise which has no statutory sanction, in as much as she passes an operative part only, for reasons best known to her, and then on the same day, passes a reasoned order. The matter requires an inquiry by the Collector Washim. 6. Coming to the merits of the matter, after going through the impugned order of the Tahsildar and the Sub- Divisional Officer, it is but apparent that they have not (3) 31 wp 3354-2025 considered the matter in proper perspective. Thus, in that view of the matter, the following order is passed : ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order of the Tehsildar (the reasoned as well as the operative portion), in MCA-5/Wakad Division- 1/17/2022-23, dated 28.02.2024, as also confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Revision Case No. MCA-5/Wakad Division-1/18/2023-2024, dated 20.05.2025, are quashed and set aside. iii) The matter is relegated to the Tahsildar Risod for deciding in accordance with law. iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 13.10.2026 without there being any formal notice in that regard. 7. Looking at the peculiar facts, it is directed that the matter be allotted to some other Tahsildar who is having jurisdiction to decide the same. 8. Looking at the conspectus of facts stated hereinabove, I hereby direct that the Collector Washim should make an inquiry in the matter of the Tahsildar as to in how many matters the Tahsildar has passed only operative order without any reasoned order initially, and a reasoned order is followed by the same. 9. The compliance report to be submitted within six weeks from today. (4) 31 wp 3354-2025 10. At this juncture, Mr. Gawai, learned Counsel makes a request to continue the interim order already granted since 27.06.2025. 11. Since the matter is relegated, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the interim order is continued for a period of four weeks from today with liberty to the petitioners to pray for continuing the said interim order to be made to the Tahsildar who would be allotted with the same matter, and the Tahsildar would decide it in accordance with law. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 17:16:31