Bombay High Court

SABIYABEGUM MAHMOOD KHAN AND OTHERSversusTAHSILDAR REVENUE NANDED AND OTHERS

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

Holding

The civil applications seeking recall of the order are dismissed as they lack merit.

Summary

The applicants filed two civil applications seeking to recall the High Court's order dated 09‑10‑2024 in Writ Petition No.11267/2024, which had directed the Tahsildar to decide on a representation filed on 22‑08‑2024 within three months. After a contempt petition, the authorities eventually decided on the representation, but the applicants alleged that the decision mutated the original petitioner's name in the revenue record, affecting their rights. The Court examined the submissions and held that the order was merely an innocuous direction that had been complied with, and therefore there was no ground to recall it. The Court dismissed the civil applications, directing the aggrieved parties to pursue any further remedy available under law. All contentions were left open for future proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the civil applications seeking recall of the Court's order dated 09‑10‑2024 are maintainable.
Whether the mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue record warrants setting aside the order.
Whether the Court can intervene after the respondent has complied with the earlier direction.

Subjects

recall of order
contempt petition
mutation of name
revenue record
civil application
writ petition
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:13634-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…