Bombay High Court
BASHIR VAJIRBHAI SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The decree dated 09.08.2023 is final and must be implemented; Section 135 MLR Code is not applicable to its execution.
Summary
The Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench, heard a writ petition filed by Bashir Vajirbhai Shaikh seeking compliance with a decree dated 09.08.2023. The Court had earlier, on 25.06.2026, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR) to implement that decree. The State, through its Government Pleader, attempted to invoke Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, to re‑argue the matter, despite the decree being final and the private respondent having lost both first and second appeals. The Court held that the decree is final, Section 135 is irrelevant to the execution, and the DSLR must comply with the earlier order. It warned that any grievance must be pursued through proper appeal channels and ordered the DSLR to implement the decree forthwith, setting a compliance date of 13 August 2026.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, to the execution of the decree dated 09.08.2023?
- Can the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records raise disputed factual questions in this proceeding after the decree has become final?
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 135
Subjects
- writ petition
- decree implementation
- land records
- Section 135
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- final decree
- execution of decree
- compliance order
Judgment
2.WP.11178.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11178 OF 2025
Bashir Vajirbhai Shaikh .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode a/w. Ms. Sheetal Ubale, Mr. Mohan M.
Chavan and Mr. Sumit S. Dhanawade, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : JULY 30, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Bansode, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.
Kalel, learned AGP for Respondent - State and Mr. Deshpande, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.7.
2. We are very clear about the order we passed on 25.06.2026.
What we have stated in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 is clear and
unequivocal. succinctly clear. It is unambiguous.
3. Today, when the matter is placed before us for compliance,
we are shocked beyond measure to see that the learned Government
Pleader, Mr. Kalel has taken up the cudgels on behalf of private
Respondent No.7, represented by Advocate Mr. Deshpande. Mr.
1 of 4
2.WP.11178.2025.doc
Deshpande, as usual, stands stoically silent next to Mr. Kalel. We do
not understand the reason as to why the Government is hell-bent on
protecting the interest of the private Respondent in defiance of the
order of this Court. We are not the first Court to have passed the order
dated 25.06.2026. All that is required is the implementation of the
order dated 09.08.2023.
4. On the contrary, we have directed the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records (for short 'DSLR') to ensure that the
said order is implemented in its true letter and spirit. Instead of doing
so, when the matter is placed for compliance after four weeks, Mr.
Kalel is vehemently arguing the applicability of Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short 'MLR Code') and is
attempting to re-argue and re-open the case on merits. We have
perused Section 135 of the MLR Code. It pertains to disputes relating
to boundaries between survey numbers and the subdivision of any
survey number or subdivision thereof. How this provision is relevant
to the present proceedings is beyond our comprehension? There is a
decree which has attained finality and is required to be implemented.
The private Respondent has lost both the First Appeal and the Second
Appeal and has not chosen to challenge the same before the Supreme
Court. We have made these specific observations. The stand taken by
the learned Government Pleader is of raking up the disputed questions
of facts before us which already stand decided in the order dated
2 of 4
2.WP.11178.2025.doc
09.08.2023 in the final Decree Application. We direct the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records, who is present before us namely Mr.
Dilip Kumar Vasantrao More, to implement and carry out the
directions contained in paragraph No.4 of our order dated 25.06.2026
in accordance with the order dated 09.08.2023. If the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records faces any difficulty, we have already
issued further directions in the said order.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Land Records cannot come to
this Court through the learned Government Pleader and seek to raise
issues involving disputed questions of facts. If the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records has any grievance, he may challenge
the judgment in the Second Appeal order or any other order in
execution proceedings in accordance with law.
6. We have also noticed that the present state of affairs
amounts to a travesty of justice for the litigant before us, who has for
the last three decades been running from pillar to post.
7. We direct Mr. Dilip Kumar Vasantrao More, Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records to comply with the order in its letter
and spirit, failing which we shall shall be constrained to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
3 of 4
2.WP.11178.2025.doc
8. Stand over to 13th August 2026. To be placed under the
caption 'For Compliance'.
[ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.07.31
17:53:28 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…