ISMAIL BAIG MIRZA ISAM BAIG AND OTHERSversusBABURAO BAPURAO WARKAD

2026:BHC-AUG:44195


                                                   1
                                                                  29 WP 3757 OF 2024

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 3757 OF 2024

                     1.    Ismail Baig S/o Mirza Isam Baig
                           Age: 44 years, Occ: Labour,
                           R/o.: Khirdi, Tq. Khultabad,
                           Dist. Aurangabad.
                           Through GPA of petitioner nos.2 to 8

                     2.    Naser Baig S/o Mirza Isam Baig
                           Age: 40 years, Occ: Labour,
                           R/o.: Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                     3.    Najma W/o Mirza Anwar Baig
                           Age: 45 years, Occ: Household.,
                           R/o.: Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                     4.    Mirza Akber Baig S/o Mirza Anwar Baig
                           Age: Major, Occ: Business,
                           R/o.: Jahgir Colony, Harsul, Dist. Aurangabad.

                     5.    Mirza Azhar Baig S/o Mirza Anwar Baig
                           Age: Major, Occ: Business,
                           R/o.: Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                     6.    Shirin D/o Mirza Anwar Baig
                           Age: Major, Occ: Household,
                           R/o.: Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                     7.    Akhtar Begum W/o Shaikh Hasan Jahagirdar
                           Age: 57 years, Occ: Household,
                           R/o.: Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                     8.    Afsar Begum W/o Shaikh Yasin
                           Age: 52 years, Occ: Household,
                           R/o.: SakharamPanth Nagar,
                           Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                           VERSUS
                                         2
                                                              29 WP 3757 OF 2024

        Baburao s/o Bapurao Warkad
        Died Through L.Rs.

1-1     Tara Bai W/o Baburao Warkad
        Age: 60 Years, Occ: Household,
        R/o. At Post, Khedi, Tq. Kultabad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.

1-2     Anil S/o Baburao Warkad
        Age: 45 Years, Occ: Teacher,
        R/o. At Post, Khedi, Tq. Kultabad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.

1-3     Sandhya D/o Baburao Warkad
        Age: 47 Years, Occ: Household,
        R/o. At Post, Khedi, Tq. Kultabad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.

1-4     Binny D/o Baburao Warkad
        Age: 40 Years, Occ: Household,
        R/o. At Post, Khedi, Tq. Kultabad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Akram Inamdar i/b. Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for the
Petitioners
Mr. A. A. Khande i/b. Mr. G. V. Sukale, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1-1 to 1-4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                            DATED : 28th September 2026

JUDGMENT :-

.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.      Mr. Akram Inamdar instructed by Mr. S. S. Kazi, learned

Advocate for the petitioners submits that the subject matter
                               3
                                               29 WP 3757 OF 2024

land i.e. agricultural piece of land admeasuring 4 Acres 23

Gunthas situated at Old Survey No. 61 (New Gat No. 130)

located at Mausala, Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad was an

inam land. He submits that taking departure from the strict

rule under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants

Act, 1954 of obtaining prior permission from the competent

authority to transfer such land, one Aziz Baig Vazir Baig

executed a registered sale deed bearing No. 969 on

03.02.1968 in favour of the present respondents.

3.    Mr. Inamdar submits that since the transfer was not

permissible for want of prior sanction of the competent

authority, the petitioners took recourse to Section 6 of the Act

before the competent authority vide an application at Exhibit

A. The petitioners sought cancellation of the sale deeds and

cancellation of the mutation entry. The said application was

turned down by the then Additional Collector on 30.10.2019

in terms of the amended provision of Section 6(3)(b) of the

Act. The respondents were left at liberty to get the sale deeds

regularized. The petitioners were set at liberty to file an

appeal under Section 12 of the Act before the Maharashtra

Revenue Tribunal.
                                  4
                                                    29 WP 3757 OF 2024

4.    Accordingly,       the   petitioners     filed      Case    No.

49/A/2019/A before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. On

25.02.2021, at the request of the petitioners, the Tribunal

granted leave to withdraw the proceedings. As per the further

request, the petitioners were permitted to take up proceedings

before the proper forum and it was also observed that in case

the petitioners approached any such forum, the delay may be

condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Consequent to the withdrawal of the appeal under Section 12

of the Act, the petitioners filed proceedings before the

Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. After hearing the

parties   vide   order    dated       21.12.2021,   the    Divisional

Commissioner, Aurangabad dismissed the proceedings on the

point of jurisdiction.

5.    Mr. Inamdar submits that the petitioners are now

remediless. That, pursuant to the order passed by the

Additional Collector, they had been rightly before the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 12 of the Act.

However, since the Tribunal has permitted the petitioners to

take up the proceedings before the appropriate forum, the

Divisional Commissioner ought to have decided the matter on
                              5
                                             29 WP 3757 OF 2024

its own merits. He would submit that the proceedings before

the Divisional Commissioner were filed under Section 12 of

the Act. With this, Mr. Inamdar prays to allow the Writ

Petition and relegate the matter back either to the Divisional

Commissioner or even to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

6.    Mr. A. A. Khande instructed by Mr. G. V. Sukale,

learned Advocate for the respondents would stand in support

of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. He

submits that an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner

under Section 12 of the Act is not at all maintainable, and

hence there could be no error in the order passed by the

Divisional Commissioner. Mr. Khande further submits that it is

not the case that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has

dismissed the proceedings on merits. Apparently, since the

Tribunal was not in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners

sought leave to withdraw the proceedings from the Tribunal.

Mr. Khande concludes his argument with a submission that

the petitioners cannot take undue benefit of the liberty

granted by the Tribunal. Thus, he prays to dismiss the Writ

Petition.
                               6
                                               29 WP 3757 OF 2024

7.    With able assistance of the learned Advocates for the

respective parties, I have perused the case in hand.

8.    Apparently, the petitioners have initially taken a right

step under Section 12 of the Act to approach the Maharashtra

Revenue Tribunal against the first order dated 30.10.2019

passed by the then Additional Collector, Aurangabad. I cannot

comprehend the submissions of Mr. Inamdar that an

opportunity to withdraw the appeal and to move before the

appropriate forum, was in fact a direction by the learned

President of the Tribunal to the petitioners to withdraw the

proceedings and to go before a proper forum.

9.    While arguing the matter, Mr. Inamdar insisted that

although it is recorded as leave to withdraw, in fact, it was a

direction by the learned President of the Tribunal to the

petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. Looking to the

text of the order passed by the then learned President of the

Tribunal on 25.02.2021, it is clear that the petitioners

themselves voluntarily chose to withdraw the proceedings.

Suffice to note, an adverse inference is drawn against the

petitioners that since the Tribunal was not in favour of the

petitioners, they sought leave to withdraw the proceedings
                                  7
                                             29 WP 3757 OF 2024

with liberty to take another proceeding before the appropriate

forum. Although leave is granted by the Tribunal, it is trite

law that a leave cannot override the provisions of law. Mere

grant of leave does not create another forum for a party to

take up the proceedings for separate filing. Leave to file

appropriate proceeding is always subject to the law and

availability of a legal remedy.

10.   In view of this, the petitioners now cannot take benefit

of their   own wrong to contend that          the Divisional

Commissioner ought to have heard their matter on merits.

Although Mr. Inamdar has submitted that an appeal before

the Divisional Commissioner was filed under Section 12 of the

Act, taking recourse to Section 2-A of the Act, this is not a

convincing argument. Section 12 of the Act is an independent

appellate remedy and is placed into service before the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide an appeal. From the text

of the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned President

of the Tribunal, it nowhere appears that the Tribunal defined

appropriate remedy before any other forum.

11.   As observed above, the petitioners cannot take undue

benefit of their own wrong. No merit is found in the Writ
                                8
                                                29 WP 3757 OF 2024

Petition.

12.   The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

13.   Rule stands discharged.




                                    ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW