Bombay High Court

SAKHARAM DIGAMBARRAO DESHMUKH DIED THR LRS KISHOR SAKHARAM DESHPANDE AND OTHERSversusTHE TAHSILDAR REVENUE NANDED AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: N B SURYAWANSHI VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The High Court dismissed the applications, holding that the order was procedural, had been complied with, and any grievance must be pursued via the appropriate legal remedies.

Summary

The applicants filed two civil applications seeking to recall a court order dated 09/10/2024 that directed the Tahsildar, Nanded to decide on a representation filed on 22/08/2024. The order required a decision within three months, which was not initially taken, leading to a contempt petition; subsequently, the authorities decided on the representation, but the applicants claim the decision altered the name of the original petitioner in the revenue record. The High Court examined whether the applications had merit, noting that the order was merely procedural and had been complied with. The Court held that the applicants had no substantive ground to recall the order and that any grievance with the decision must be pursued through the appropriate legal remedies. Consequently, the civil applications were dismissed.

Issues considered

The court may recall its own order directing a government authority to act?
Whether the failure to decide within the stipulated period constitutes contempt warranting recall of the order?
Whether the applicants have a right to challenge the decision on the representation affecting the revenue record through a civil application?

Subjects

contempt petition
recall of order
representation
revenue record
civil application
judicial discretion
remedy

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:13635-DB


                                                1                  995-CA-9813-25.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9813 OF 2025
                                     IN WP/11267/2024

                          SABIYABEGUM MAHMOOD KHAN AND OTHERS
                                             VERSUS
                       THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE), NANDED AND OTHERS
                                               ...
              Mr. Rahil Riyazoddin Kazi, Advocate for Applicant
              Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondent/State
              Ms. Aarya Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for
              Petitioner in WP.
                                               ...
                                              WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8272 OF 2025
                                       IN WP/11267/2024

                  SAKHARAM DIGAMBARRAO DESHMUKH (DIED) THROUGH LRS
                                             VERSUS
                         THE TAHSILDAR REVENUE NANDED AND ANOTHER
                                                ...
              Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for Applicant
              Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent/State
              Ms. Aarya Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for
              Petitioner in WP
                                                ….

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                             VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.
                                       DATE : 27th MARCH, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.           By these applications, the applicants seek recalling of

              the order dated 09/10/2024 passed in Writ Petition No.11267/2024.


              2.           Perusal of the said order shows that this Court directed

              respondent No.1 to take appropriate decision on the representation

              dated 22/08/2024 :led by original petitioner, in accordance with law




              SVH
                                  2                    995-CA-9813-25.odt


and on it’s own merits, within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of copy of the said order. Since no decision was

taken pursuant to the order passed by this Court, contempt petition

was :led and thereafter the respondents authorities have taken

decision on the representation of the petitioner. Applicants claim

that they are a>ected by the said decision as the name of

respondent No.3 – original petitioner is mutated in the revenue

record.


3.          We are not impressed by the submissions of the

applicants. Innocuous order was passed by this Court to take

decision on the representation of original petitioner, which the

authorities have taken. In that view of the matter, we :nd no merit

in the civil applications and the same are, therefore, rejected.


4.          If applicants are aggrieved by the decision taken on the

representation, they have to avail remedies as per the law. All the

contentions of the parties are kept open.



(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.)           (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




SVH

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…