Bombay High Court
DAGDU PANDHARI MALI THROUGH G P A RAMCHANDRA DAGRU MALIversusSONABAI BALMUKUND TAPADE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Tribunal’s order remanding the matter to the District Collector stands and is not set aside.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s order of 20 January 2020 which remanded a land revenue dispute to the District Collector of Latur, on the ground that the Tribunal had based its decision on a 1958 order that was not originally on record. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal’s remand was proper and whether the Court could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. It held that the Tribunal correctly remanded the matter for fresh consideration now that the 1958 order is available, and there was no basis for the High Court to set aside the order. The Court directed the District Collector to decide the issues independently, including authenticating the 1958 order, and clarified that any mutation entry arising from a sale deed dated 23‑06‑2024 would remain provisional pending the Collector’s final decision. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in remanding the matter to the District Collector despite the earlier order not being on record at the time of the Collector’s decision
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the Tribunal’s remand order under Article 227 of the Constitution
- Whether the authenticity of the 1958 order must be ascertained before the District Collector proceeds
- Effect of a subsequent registered sale deed on mutation entry pending the Collector’s final decision
Subjects
- Revenue law
- Land mutation
- Revision
- Article 227
- Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- District Collector
- Sale deed
- Writ petition
- Remand
- Authentication of order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:2055-DB
1 1009 WP 2738-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1009 WRIT PETITION NO. 2738 OF 2021
DAGDU PANDHARI MALI THROUGH G P A RAMCHANDRA DAGRU
MALI
VERSUS
SONABAI BALMUKUND TAPADE AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Girish K. Thigale (Naik) – Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Milind Patil – Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Ms. Khushi Varma –
Advocate for Respondent Nos.8 and 9
Ms. D.S. Jape – AGP for Respondent Nos.6 and 7, State
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 17.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner assails the order
dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Case No.23/B/2019/L, whereby the learned
Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the District
Collector, Latur.
3. The record reveals that the Tribunal allowed the revision mainly on
the ground that the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Tahsildar,
which was based upon the earlier order dated 12.02.1958 passed by the
2 1009 WP 2738-2021.odt
Collector, Osmanabad, was neither available nor placed on record before
the Collector while deciding the proceedings.
4. Upon perusal of the impugned order and considering the
submissions advanced, it is evident that the Tribunal has merely
remanded the matter for adjudication after taking into consideration that
the order dated 12.02.1958, which was not available at the time when
the Collector passed the order dated 04.01.2018. Now that the said order
is available and is directed the matter to be considered afresh, therefore, I
do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 20.01.2020
passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Aurangabad, in Case No.23/B/2019/L, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
5. The District Collector, Latur, shall decide all the issues raised by the
parties independently and in accordance with law including the
authentication of the order dated 12.02.1958, without being influenced
by any observations made in earlier proceedings.
6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
7. Insofar as the interim order is concerned, learned Senior Counsel
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar submits that respondent Nos.8 and 9 have
purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.2024.
Earlier, this Court had directed the revenue authorities not to effect
3 1009 WP 2738-2021.odt
mutation entry. In view of the subsequent registered sale deed, it is
clarified that if any mutation entry is effected pursuant thereto, the same
shall remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending
before the District Collector.
8. It is open for the petitioner to challenge the registered sale deed by
initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Pooja Kale/
Checking your session…