Disposed¶14

Bhutali Shattu Vijaymane v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2025WP/1034/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC; WP 1034/2025; Mamlatdar's Courts Act 1906, S.5 and S.23; SDO as revisional authority refused interim stay of Tahsildar's order; Court clarified impugned order's observations not binding on revision; revision to be decided within 3 months per natural justice; disposed 30-01-2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with clarification that the impugned order's observations shall not influence or bind the revisional authority, and a direction to decide the revision application expeditiously within three months; no order as to costs. ¶14

Bhutali Shattu Vijaymane vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations contained in the SDO's impugned order (rejecting the petitioner's application for expeditious hearing and interim stay) could prejudice the merits of the petitioner's pending revision application, warranting clarification and directions from the High Court. (Issue inferred from the court's reasoning; no formal framing in the judgment.)

¶14

Court's answer

The Sub-Divisional Officer, being the statutory revisional authority under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, is under an obligation to adjudicate the revision application arising out of the Tahsildar's Section 5 order.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The observations made in the impugned SDO order shall not influence or bind the revisional authority; the revision application shall be decided independently and in accordance with law, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶14

Key takeaways

The revisional authority is directed to expeditiously hear and decide the petitioner's revision application within three months from the date of the order, in accordance with the Act and the principles of natural justice; the parties are to cooperate fully.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), Writ Petition No. 1034 of 2025, decided 30 January 2025: The petitioner's interlocutory application in a revision application under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 — seeking expeditious hearing and interim stay of the Tahsildar's order passed under Section 5 — had been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), the revisional authority. The Court did not disturb that rejection but clarified that the observations in the impugned order shall not influence or bind the revisional authority, which must decide the revision independently, in accordance with law, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court further directed the revisional authority to decide the revision application within three months, with full cooperation from the parties. Petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

98-wp1034-2025.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2025.01.31 10:35:21 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1034 OF 2025

¶6

Bhutali Shattu Vijaymane … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JANUARY 30, 2025

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The applicant filed a revision application under Section 23 of the Act, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar. In the said revision application, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking expeditious hearing of the revision application and interim relief in the form of a stay of the order passed by the Tahsildar. By the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), acting as the revisional authority, rejected the application, holding that the petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court, as the challenge before the Sub-Divisional Officer is quasi-judicial in nature and does not warrant interim relief at this stage. The SDO further observed that

¶11

¶12

98-wp1034-2025.doc

¶13

the petitioner’s remedy lies in pursuing the revision application on its merits.

¶14

The Sub-Divisional Officer, being the statutory revisional authority under the provisions of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, is under an obligation to adjudicate the revision application arising out of the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 5 of the Act. The impugned order, however, contains certain observations that may prejudice the merits of the revision application. It is, therefore, clarified that the observations made in the impugned order shall not influence or bind the revisional authority while deciding the petitioner’s revision application on its merits. The revisional authority shall decide the matter independently and in accordance with law, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. With this clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶15

In view of the above, the revisional authority is directed to expeditiously hear and decide the revision application filed by the petitioner. The revision application shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of this order, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice. The parties are directed to cooperate fully with the revisional authority to ensure the timely disposal of the matter.

¶16

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶17

Bhutali Shattu Vijaymane v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhutali Shattu Vijaymane v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhukar Karu Kadlak vs Grievance Redressal Committee - Mumbai Suburbs

The Chairman/ Secretary, Jai Mangal Moorti Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies , S Ward and Ors.

Nitin Madhusudan Raut vs Smt. Sharayu Madhusudan Raut and Ors.

Executive Engineer Urmod Dam Division vs Tatyaba Baburao Bhosale and Ors.

Executive Engineer, Urmodi Dam Division, Satara vs Sahebrao Laxman Bhosale Decd Thru Lhrs and Anr.

Executive Engineer Urmodi Dam Division Satara vs Sunil Tuljaram Shaha and Anr.