Bombay High Court

VIRBHADRA SHIVPUTRA TAMBULE THR. POWER OF ATTORNEY ANNARAO S. TAMBULE AND ANRversusSUREKHA BASAWARAJ KESARE AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the interim arrangement shall continue and the revision must be decided within four months, without expressing any view on the merits.

Summary

Petitioners Uday and others filed a writ petition against respondents Surekha Basawaraj Kesare and others, challenging a decision of the Tahsildar under Section 5 of the Act. The respondents had obtained a favorable order, and the petitioners sought a revision and an interim stay of that order. The High Court rejected the interim stay application but later granted interim relief on 5 December 2025, directing that the interim arrangement continue until the revision is finally decided. The Court ordered that the revision application be decided expeditiously, within four months from the date of the order. No opinion on the merits of the dispute was expressed, and the writ petition was disposed.

Issues considered

Whether an interim stay of the Tahsildar's order should be granted
Whether the High Court can continue an interim arrangement pending final disposal of the revision
Whether the revision application must be decided within a stipulated period of four months

Legislation cited

[Unspecified Act] — s. 5

Subjects

interim relief
revision application
section 5
high court
writ petition
stay order
expeditious disposal

Judgment

56-WP-12446-2025=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12446 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by
UDAY
Virbhadra Shivputra Tambule Thr. Power Of Attorney … Petitioners
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP Annarao S. Tambule and Anr.
JAGTAP Date:
2026.08.20
16:10:21
+0530 Vs.
Surekha Basawaraj Kesare and Ors. … Respondents
………….
Mr. R.S. Alange for the Petitioners
Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni a/w Raghuvendra B. Kulkarni for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. J.P. Patil, AGP for the Respondent – State.
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026.
P. C. :

. Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are unanimous to

continue interim arrangement and to direct the respondent No.4 – Sub-

Divisional Officer to decide Revision Application No. 310 of 2025 within

stipulated period.

3. The respondents are successful before the Tahasildar under Section

5 of the Act. Being aggrieved, Revision is preferred against the

petitioners. The Interim Application for stay came to be rejected by the

impugned order. This Court granted interim relief vide order dated

Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 2
56-WP-12446-2025=.doc

05.12.2025 which is being continued further. The interim arrangement

expounded by this Court shall be continued till final disposal of the

Revision. The Revision shall be decided expeditiously and within four

(04) months from today.

4. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

5. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

matter.

6. The parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the matter.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )

Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…