Bombay High Court

RAMESH PANDURANG KHISHMATRAO DECD THROU. L.H.versusANIL NARAYAN JADHAV AND ORS

Decided: 24 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The remand order does not restrict the Sub‑Divisional Officer to the observations preceding paragraph 16; the entire matter may be adjudicated.

Summary

The petitioner, Ramesh Pandurang Khishmatrao Decd, challenged an order dated 17 July 2026 issued by the President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which remanded Appeal No. 142 of 2024 to the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) for a fresh decision. The petitioner feared that the remand would confine the SDO to consider only the observations made before paragraph 16 of the impugned order, which dealt with the implications of Government Resolution No. 552/1949 under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The High Court examined whether the operative order, particularly clause (2), limited the scope of the SDO’s adjudication. The Court held that clause (2) expressly clarifies that the entire matter remains open for adjudication and is not restricted to the earlier observations. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the order of remand stood as issued.

Issues considered

Whether the remand order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal limits the Sub‑Divisional Officer to consider only observations preceding paragraph 16 of the operative order
Whether the entire matter remains open for adjudication before the Sub‑Divisional Officer despite the remand

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — s. 14

Subjects

remand
revenue tribunal
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
Section 14
sub‑divisional officer
writ petition
appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                               47-WP-10889-2026.DOC




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 10889 OF 2026


                      Ramesh Pandurang Khishmatrao Decd Through                     ..Petitioner
                      LH
                            Versus
                      Anil Narayan Jadhav and Ors                               …Respondents

                      Mr. S. G. Karandikar, with Milind Parab, Rajendra J Gawade and
                             Sumit Khopkar, i/b Milind Parab and Associates, for the
                             Petitioner.

                                                    CORAM:          N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                    DATE :          24th AUGUST 2026


                      P.C.:

                      1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

                      2.      The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 17 th July 2026,
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
                      whereby the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.08.26
09:27:50 +0530
                      Mumbai, has remanded the Appeal No. 142 of 2024, for afresh decision

                      to the Sub-Divisional Officer.

                      3.      The apprehension of Mr. Karandikar is that the decision post

                      remand would be restricted to the observations which precede the

                      operative order in paragraph 16 of the impugned order. It is true in

                      paragraph 16, the learned President, MRT, has directed the SDO to

                      examine the purported implications of the Government Resolution No.

                      ARS                                     1/2
                                                    47-WP-10889-2026.DOC

552/1949, dated 27th February 1950, qua Section 14 of the Maharashtra

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. However, post remand, the

entire matter would be open for adjudication before the SDO.

4.    Subject to the aforesaid clarification, which is evident from the

Clause (2) of the impugned operative order itself, the Petition stands

disposed.



                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                 2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…