GOVIND DEVRAO CHAUREversusDNYANDEV SITARAM MISAL AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:39772

                                                        1
                                                                         20-wp-1055-2024

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1055 OF 2024

                                         Govind Devrao Chaure
                                                VERSUS
                                  Dnyandev Sitaram Misal And Others
                                                   ...
                     Mr. S. A. Vaidya h/f Mr. A. R. Vaidya, Advocate for the
                     Petitioner
                     Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State
                     Mr. D. M. Mane h/f Mr. M. M. Patil, Advocate for Respondent
                     no.1
                                                   ...
                                                 WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6760 OF 2025 IN WP/1055/2024
                                                  …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                              DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026
                     P.C. :-

                     .         Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. At

                     the outset I must record that the present Writ Petition as well

                     as the prayers therein are as misconceived as the revision

                     proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Additional

                     Divisional Commisioner, out of which the Writ Petition has

                     arisen.

                     2.        It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has filed one

                     Regular Civil Suit No.389 of 2008 before the Civil Court

                     seeking partition and separate possession, to which the

                     respondents are party. The Civil Court negated the suit which
                               2
                                                20-wp-1055-2024

constrained the petitioner to file Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of

2011 before the District Court. Upon hearing the parties, the

First Appellate Court pleased to decree the suit and to allow

the appeal.

3.    Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached

this Court vide Second Appeal No.105 of 2016 which

ultimately came to be dismissed. Suffice to note, Civil

Application St. No.23775 of 2016 for review is pending in this

Court at the behest of the present respondents. In the

mutation proceedings arising out of the execution proceedings

taken up by the parties, the Tahsildar, Beed vide order dated

12.09.2016 recorded mutation in the name of the petitioner.

4.    The said order was taken up by the present respondents

before the Sub Divisional Officer, Beed vide case No.2016/

ROR/223. From the documents placed before me, it appears

that the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 15.05.2018

kept the proceedings under Section 247 of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for brevity “MLR Code”) at the

stage of sane die. It was recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer

that the matter was kept on sane die stage on account of

pendency of the Civil Application St. No.23775 of 2016.
                               3
                                                 20-wp-1055-2024

5.    As against this order, the petitioner filed proceedings

bearing   no.2018/ROR/REV/155          before   the    Additional

Commissioner, Aurangabad under Section 257 of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. By recording that on

numerous occasions the petitioner consistently failed to

prosecute the proceedings, the then Additional Divisional

Commissioner vide order dated 03.10.2019 dismissed the

proceeding for want of prosecution.

6.    Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 251

of the MLR Code, by the petitioner for restoration of the

dismissed proceedings. However, it appears that even this

application was not cautiously prosecuted by the petitioner,

this constrained the then Additional Divisional Commissioner

to dismiss the said application for want of prosecution.

7.    Thereafter, again, another application for restoration of

the first restoration application was filed by the petitioner

under Section 257 of the MLR Code. The Additional Divisional

commissioner vide order dated 25.07.2023 rejected the said

application observing that the petitioner at no point of time

has   seriously   prosecuted   any    application.    Hence,   the

impugned order dated 25.07.2026 came to be passed which is

under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
                              4
                                               20-wp-1055-2024

8.    Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Mr. D. M.

Mane h/f Mr. M. M. Patil, learned Advocate has caused

appearance for the respondents.

9.    Mr. S. A. Vaidya h/f Mr. A. R. Vaidya, learned Advocate

for the petitioner would fairly submit that there was lapse on

the part of the petitioner to prosecute the proceedings before

the Additional Commissioner; however, that was not an

intentional attempt. He would submit that the then learned

Advocate for the petitioner had met with an accident, and

therefore could not attend the proceedings timely. He would

submit that the second restoration application was filed by

engaging another Advocate whereby it was sought to be

explained that the proceedings were bonafide and were not

negligently handled by the petitioner. He would submit that

one last opportunity be given to the petitioner to agitate the

issue before the Additional Commissioner for which petitioner

is even ready to compensate the respondents by paying

adequate costs.

10.   Mr. Mane, learned Advocate for the respondents would

submit that so long as Advocate’s personal difficulty is

concerned, he may not have any objection. However, he

would point out that the cause taken before the Additional
                               5
                                                20-wp-1055-2024

Commissioner itself is not maintainable. He would refer to an

order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer

whereby the proceedings are already kept on sane die.

Considering pendency of the Review petition, he would resist

his temptation to argue the petition on merits, whereby a

negligence is sought to be justified. In all fairness, Mr. Mane

would submit that the present petition and the proceedings

before the Additional Commissioner are misconceived. In fact,

the petitioner ought to have prayed for continuation of the

proceeding before the Sub Divisional Officer which later

mainly kept on sane die.

11.   Heard learned Advocates for both the parties at length.

As I observed at the outset, the Writ Petition as also the

proceedings before the Additional Divisional Commissioner

are also misconceived. The proceedings are handled as

negligently as it could be. However, so far as the main issue as

highlighted by Mr. Mane is concerned, I refrain myself from

commenting further as to how the petitioner had been

negligent in handling the proceedings before the Additional

Divisional Commissioner.

12.   The issue of mutation has arisen out of Civil

Proceedings. A civil dispute has now attained finality whereby
                               6
                                                20-wp-1055-2024

the suit is decreed. Merely because the Civil Application for

review is pending in this Court, that by itself will not operate

as a stay to the findings recorded by the District Court. No

Authority including the Revenue Authorities is precluded,

prevented or supposed to wait for the result in the review

proceedings. They are bound by the orders passed by the Civil

Courts.

13.    The law on this point is very much clear as is observed

by this Court in the case of Meena A. Rizvi vs The State Of

Maharashtra And Ors., reported at 2026 SCC Online Bom.

818.      I also take note of Mr. Mane’s argument that his

objection as regards to the execution is pending before the

Tahsildar. May it be, in exercise of the powers under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, I deem it appropriate to

dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the Sub Divisional

Officer/respondent no.7 to conclude the proceedings in case

no.2016/ROR/223 within a period of three months from the

date of appearance of the parties before him.

14.    As far as the submission of Mr. Mane regarding his

pending objection before the Tahsildar is concerned, the Sub

Divisional Officer shall call the file from the Tahsildar and

shall decide the same alongwith the present proceedings. To
                                 7
                                                   20-wp-1055-2024

this, Mr. Vaidya, learned Advocate places no objection since it

would be to avoid the complexity in the matter and

multiplicity of litigation.

15.     Suffice to note, the Sub Divisional Officer shall take into

consideration the law prevailing in this field as is observed

above. Suffice to observe, the proceedings filed by the

petitioner before the Additional Commissioner are nonest. The

parties at consensus to appear before the Sub Divisional

Officer on 11.09.2026.

16.     The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before

the Sub Divisional Officer/respondent no.7 in the hearing of

the matter.

17.     In view of the above, costs of Rs.20,000/- is saddled on

the petitioners which should be deposited in this Court within

a period of four weeks from today. On deposit on such costs,

the respondents are entitled to withdraw the same without

filing any separate Civil Application.

18.     In terms of above, Writ Petition stands disposed of.



                                     ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026