Bombay High Court

KAILAS SHAMRAO DHOKLE AND ORSversusTHE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER PUNE SUB DIVISION AND ORS

Decided: 31 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petitioners are aggrieved persons and the Sub‑Divisional Officer must examine the maintainability of the revision, rendering his earlier refusal invalid.

Summary

The petitioners challenged an order dated 8 June 2026 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, by filing a revision before the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO), Pune. The SDO refused to entertain the revision, holding that the petitioners were not parties to the Tahsildar’s proceedings. The High Court held that the SDO should have examined whether the petitioners were aggrieved persons before dismissing the revision. Consequently, the Court quashed the SDO’s communication dated 12 August 2026 and directed the SDO to rehear the revision application, providing an opportunity of hearing and deciding the maintainability within four weeks. The petitioners were ordered to appear before the SDO on 7 September 2026. The petition was disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are aggrieved persons entitled to file a revision against the Tahsildar’s order under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906.
Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s refusal to entertain the revision without examining aggrieved status is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 — s. 5

Subjects

revision
aggrieved person
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
Section 5
Sub‑Divisional Officer
writ petition
quash order

Judgment

                                                                        39-WP11173-2026.DOC

                                                                                      Santosh

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 11173 OF 2026

                      Kailas Shamrao Dhokle And Ors                          ...Petitioners
                                        Versus
                      The Sub Divisional Officer Pune Sub
                      Division And Ors                                    …Respondents

                      Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal, a/w Tushar Nikam, for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, a/w G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP
                           for the State.

SANTOSH
                                                         CORAM:      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
SUBHASH                                                  DATED:      31st AUGUST, 2026
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
                      Oral Order:-
Date: 2026.09.02
10:02:30 +0530



                      1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.     The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 8 th June,

                      2026, passed by the Tahsildar, under Section 5 of the

                      Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906.

                      3.     Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred

                      revision application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pune, and

                      vide   communication     dated   12th   August,   2026,   the    Sub-

                      Divisional Officer (R1) declined to entertain the revision

                      application on the ground that the petitioners were not the

                      party to the proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s

                      Courts Act, 1906 before the Tahsildar.

                                                       1/3
                                                39-WP11173-2026.DOC

4.     The Sub-Divisional Officer ought to have examined the

issue whether the petitioners can be said to be aggrieved

persons and then decided the question of maintainability of the

revision at the instance of the petitioners. Prima facie, it does

not appear that the Sub-Divisional Officer had delved into the

aspect as to whether the petitioners are aggrieved by the order

passed by the Tahsildar on 8th June, 2026, and declined to

entertain the revision only on the ground that the petitioners

were not parties to the proceedings before the Tahsildar.

5.     Thus, the matter is required to be relegated back to the

Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the question of entertainability

of the revision against the order dated 8 th June, 2026 at the

instance of the petitioners afresh and pass a reasoned order.

6.     The petition, thus, stands disposed in the following terms:

(i)    The communication dated 12th August, 2026 stands

       quashed and set aside.

(ii)   The Sub-Divisional Officer is requested to hear and decide

       the aspect of the maintainability of the revision against

       the order dated 8th June, 2026 at the instance of the

       petitioners afresh after providing an opportunity of

       hearing to the parties, as expeditiously as possible



                                2/3
                                                 39-WP11173-2026.DOC

(iii)   The petitioners shall appear before the Sub-Divisional

        Officer on 7th September, 2026.

(iv)    The Sub-Divisional Officer is requested to decide the issue

        of tenablity of the revision application as expeditiously as

        possible and, preferably, within a period of four weeks

        from 7th September, 2026.

                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                                 3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…