Abdul Majed Qutubuddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Abdul Majed Qutubuddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of as not maintainable; liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 against the order dated 12.10.2017, with the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law and to consider the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition for condonation of delay; pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternate remedy of an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable, the petitioner having an alternate remedy of an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 12.10.2017 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, by filing an appeal under Section 247 of the Code before the appropriate authority, which shall decide the appeal in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The appellate authority shall consider the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition while deciding any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.ratio¶7
All points in the matter are kept open.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad) [Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.] disposed of Writ Petition No. 3524 of 2022 (Abdul Majed Qutubuddin v. The State of Maharashtra and Others) as not maintainable on the ground of alternate remedy. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, in Outward No. 2017/Sett.-2/Graveyard/WS-1249, relating to land allotted for a Kabrastan and cancellation of the mutation entry, alleging that the order was passed without hearing him. The Court held that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, granted liberty to file such appeal before the appropriate authority, directed that the appeal be decided in accordance with law, and directed the appellate authority to consider the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition while deciding any application for condonation of delay. All points were kept open and pending civil applications, if any, stood disposed of.

2025:BHC-AUG:34992

1 987 WP 3524-2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

987 WRIT PETITION NO. 3524 OF 2022

ABDUL MAJED QUTUBUDDIN VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. Pravin N. Kalani – Advocate for Petitioner

Mr. D.R. Korde – AGP for Respondents, State Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Mr. Y.B. Pathan and Mr. Ammet R. Vaidya – Advocates for respective Respondents

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 11.12.2025

PER COURT :

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the

Sub–Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, in Outward No. 2017/ Sett.–2/ Graveyard/ WS-1249.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by

the Sub–Divisional Officer is without hearing of the petitioner. He further submits that the learned Collector allotted the land to the Kabrastan and the learned Tahsildar, without giving notice to the petitioner, cancelled the mutation entry as well as proceeded with the allotment. He further submits that since the land is allotted for Kabrastan, the petitioner having interest in protecting the rights of the Muslim community, challenges the

2 987 WP 3524-2022.odt

said action. He therefore submits that the order passed by the learned Sub–Divisional Officer is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Learned A.G.P. for the respondents, State raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, submitting that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, (for short ‘the Code’).

In view thereof, the Writ Petition is disposed of as not maintainable.

The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Sub–Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, in Outward No. 2017/ Sett.–2/ Graveyard/ WS-1249, before the appropriate authority by filing an appeal under Section 247 of the Code. If the petitioner filed the appeal, the authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law.

The appellate authority shall consider the time spent in prosecuting this petition while deciding the application for condonation of delay.

All points are kept open.

Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE

Pooja Kale/