Hiraman Laxman Mazire Thr. Poa Gangaram H. Mazire vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

The petitioners are aggrieved by a notice issued on 1^st October 2024 by the Mandal Officer, intending to execute an order passed by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar.

¶22

This petition arises out of a second round of litigation, concerning the controversy between the parties. The proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act,

¶23

2

¶24

bipin prithiani

¶25

916-ia-11921.25.doc

¶26

1906 by some of the private respondents for removal of an obstruction, seeking a direction against the petitioners in that regard. The respondent No.3-Tehsildar allowed the application against the petitioners, against which they approached the respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) by filing a revision application. It is relevant to note that in the first round of litigation, during the pendency of the revision application before the respondent No.2-SDO, the interim order appears to have been vacated, due to which, the order of the respondent No.3-Tehsildar was taken up for execution and in that light, Writ Petition No. 7204 of 2022 was filed. This Court granted status-quo and thereafter, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2-SDO to decide the pending revision application of the petitioners.

¶27

The respondent No.2-SDO partly allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the respondent No.3-Tehsildar and remanded the matter back to the respondent No.3-Tehsildar for consideration afresh.

¶28

In the second round also, the respondent No.3-Tehsildar held against the petitioners, as a consequence of which, they were constrained to file revision application before the respondent No.2-SDO, wherein, on 23^rd September 2024, the order of respondent No.3-Tehsildar was stayed till the next date of hearing, which was fixed for 30^th September 2024.

¶29

On the said date, it appears that respondent No.2-SDO was

bipin prithiani

3

916-ia-11921.25.doc

not available, due to which, the stay order could not be continued. It is in this backdrop that on 1^st October 2025, the respondent No.4-Mandal Officer issued the impugned notice for execution of the order of the respondent No.3-Tehsildar.

¶34

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present petition, in which, by an order dated 17^th October 2024, a statement was recorded on behalf of the respondent No.3Tehsildar that no coercive action would be taken in pursuance of the impugned notice.

¶35

During the pendency of this petition, Interim Application No. 11921 of 2025 was filed on behalf of the certain individuals, seeking to intervene in the proceedings. According to the applicants, they and other residents in the vicinity are facing unnecessary inconvenience, as the order of status-quo is effectively preventing them from using a road, which is meant for public use. It is submitted that this Court may consider the plight of the applicants in the intervention application, while deciding the present petition.

¶36

This Court is of the opinion that when the revision application is pending before the respondent No.2-SDO on merits, allowing the order of the respondent No.3-Tehsildar to be executed during the pendency of the revision application would, in a sense, render the revision application itself infructuous. The record shows that although, the intervention applicants appear to be projecting severe inconvenience being caused to the public at

bipin prithiani

4

916-ia-11921.25.doc

large, due to the status-quo being maintained, it is a matter of record that such status-quo has continued to operate since the first round of litigation before this Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 7204 of 2022, wherein by an order dated 24^th June 2022, this Court had granted status-quo.

¶41

Allowing the impugned notice to be taken to its logical conclusion, even during the pendency of the revision application pending before the respondent No.2-SDO, would result in the order of the respondent No.3-Tehsildar being executed, which would not be in the interest of justice.

¶42

Instead, it would be appropriate that the respondent No.2SDO is directed to decide the pending revision application of the petitioners at the earliest and the status-quo, as on today is maintained, till the revision application is decided.

¶43

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2-SDO to decide the pending revision application filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶44

The status-quo as on today shall be maintained till the respondent No.2-SDO decides the pending revision application of the petitioners.

¶45

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that the respondent No.2SDO shall decide the pending revision application on its own

bipin prithiani

5

916-ia-11921.25.doc

merits and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶50

The petitioners as well as the contesting respondents shall cooperate with the respondent No.2-SDO for disposal of the pending revision application, as per the timeline indicated herein above.

¶51

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶52

MANISH PITALE, J.

Hiraman Laxman Mazire Thr. Poa Gangaram H. Mazire v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiraman Laxman Mazire Thr. Poa Gangaram H. Mazire v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ministry of Revenue and Forest 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

Tiktok Ltd. Mr Faheem Ahmad Constituted Attorney of Tiktok Ltd. vs the Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai

Kalyani Construction vs Matrukrupa Enterprises Thr Parthers

Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik Since Deceased Thor. His Legal Heirs an Representatives and Ors. vs Ramchandra Bhiwa Ghadge and Ors.

Neha Ramesh Bhanushali vs Puspasen C. Jhaveri and Anr.

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Kasauli Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Kasauli Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.