Amrut Siddha Maharaj and Another vs Padmatai Chintamani Maharaj Died Her Lrs Swanand Chintamani Maharaj and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Amrut Siddha Maharaj and Another vs Padmatai Chintamani Maharaj Died Her Lrs Swanand Chintamani Maharaj and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Correction of paragraph No.4 of the order dated 18.02.2026 by substitution with the corrected paragraph; necessary corrections to be carried out and the corrected order to be uploaded; motion disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the words recorded in paragraph No.4 of the order dated 18.02.2026 describing the Deputy Collector's order (its date and forum) were wrongly mentioned and ought to be substituted with the corrected text referring to the order dated 16.01.2020 of the Deputy Collector (Inam Abolition), Hingoli.

Court's answer

Paragraph No.4 of the order dated 18.02.2026 stands substituted by the corrected paragraph, which records quashing and setting aside of the order dated 19.08.2022 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.98-B2020-Hingoli, the order dated 16.01.2020 of the Deputy Collector (Inam Abolition), Hingoli, and the order dated 13.12.2017 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vasmat.

Ratio / Principle

Necessary corrections are to be carried out and the corrected order is to be uploaded accordingly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Speaking to minutes - clerical correction - Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.), order dated 23.02.2026 in Writ Petition No. 10741 of 2022 (Padmatai Chintamani Maharaj v. The State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others), with connected Civil Application No. 10335 of 2025 in CA/7506/2025 (Amrut Siddha Maharaj and Another v. Padmatai Chintamani Maharaj died her LRs Swanand Chintamani Maharaj and Others). The Court corrected paragraph No.4 of its order dated 18.02.2026: the erroneously recorded words referring to 'the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector (Imam Abolition), Parbhani' were replaced by the corrected text referring to 'the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector (Inam Abolition), Hingoli'. As corrected, paragraph 4 records that the order dated 19.08.2022 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.98-B2020-Hingoli, the order dated 16.01.2020 of the Deputy Collector (Inam Abolition), Hingoli, and the order dated 13.12.2017 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vasmat stand quashed and set aside. Necessary corrections directed to be carried out, corrected order to be uploaded; motion disposed of. No statutory provision or precedent was considered in this order.

2026:BHC-AUG:7483-DB This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // 1 of 2 speaking-WP.10741.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

104 WRIT PETITION NO. 10741 OF 2022

PADMATAI CHINTAMANI MAHARAJ VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10335 OF 2025 IN CA/7506/2025

AMRUT SIDDHA MAHARAJ AND ANOTHER VERSUS

PADMATAI CHINTAMANI MAHARAJ DIED HER LRS SWANAND CHINTAMANI MAHARAJ AND OTHERS

Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. M. D. Narwakdar, for the Petitioner in WP.

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 23^rd FEBRUARY, 2026

P.C.:-

Motion is made for speaking to minutes in respect of order

dated 18.02.2026.

It is submitted that in the order dated 18.02.2026, in

paragraph No.4, the following words:

“Accordingly, the order dated 19.08.2022 passed by the learned

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // 2 of 2 speaking-WP.10741.2022

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.98-B2020-Hingoli as well as the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector (Imam Abolition), Parbhani and order dated 13.12.2017, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vasmat are hereby quashed and set aside.”

have been wrongly mentioned instead of:-

“Accordingly, the order dated 19.08.2022 passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.98-B2020-Hingoli as well as the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector (Inam Abolition), Hingoli and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vasmat are hereby quashed and set aside.”

In view of the above submissions, paragraph No.4 of the order dated 18.02.2026 shall stand substituted by the corrected paragraph reproduced hereinabove.

Necessary corrections be carried out and the corrected order be uploaded accordingly.

The Motion is disposed of.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef