Allowed¶28

The Sub Divisional Officer Pandharpur v. Rekha Manohar Babar and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2026IA/11153/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

extension of time; compliance with earlier court direction; interim application in writ petition; apportionment dispute; compensation amount; Exhibit 'K'; deposit in government treasury; forwarding amount to concerned Court; reference to District Court Pandharpur; Competent Authority Respondent No.3; Sub Divisional Officer Pandharpur; Rekha Manohar Babar and Others; Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022; order dated 14 February 2025; two weeks extension; no appearance for petitioner; AGP for Applicant/State; Bombay High Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time by two weeks to comply with the direction in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14 February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022. ¶28

The Sub Divisional Officer Pandharpur vs Rekha Manohar Babar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Extension of time by two weeks to comply with the direction in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14 February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur (applicant / original respondent) should be granted extension of time to comply with the direction in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14 February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022.

¶18

Court's answer

The Application is disposed of by granting an extension of time of two weeks; the applicant (competent authority / Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur) is to comply with the direction contained in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14 February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022 within two weeks from the date of this order.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Court considered that the writ petition had effectively stood allowed in the terms of the earlier order and was therefore of the opinion that the prayer in the application could be granted even though there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.; 17 April 2026), Interim Application No. 11153 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022: The Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur (applicant / original respondent), through AGPs B.V. Samant and R.S. Pawar, sought extension of time to comply with paragraph 10 of the Court's order dated 14 February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022, whereby the Competent Authority (Respondent No.3) was directed to refer the apportionment dispute to the appropriate District Court in Pandharpur and to forward the compensation amount deposited in the government treasury in terms of Exhibit 'K' to the concerned Court within two months. None appeared for the respondents (Rekha Manohar Babar and Others). Observing that the writ petition had effectively stood allowed in the said terms, the Court disposed of the application by granting an extension of two weeks and directed the applicant (competent authority) to comply with the paragraph 10 direction within two weeks from that day.

¶1

¶2

113-ia-11153-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11153 OF 2025 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.805 OF 2022

¶6

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶7

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.04.17 18:00:24 +0530

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur Versus

¶9

… Applicant

¶10

Rekha Manohar Babar and Others

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

¶13

Mr. B.V. Samant a/w. Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGPs, for the Applicant/State. None for the Respondents.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 17^th APRIL, 2026

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

By this Application, the applicant (original respondent) – Sub

¶19

Divisional Officer, Pandharpur has prayed for extension of time to comply with the direction contained in order dated 14^th February, 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022. This Court in paragraph No. 10 of aforementioned order directed as follows:-

¶20

10] Now that the apportionment dispute has arisen, we direct the Competent Authority, i.e. Respondent No.3, to refer the dispute to the appropriate District Court in Pandharpur for resolution. The amount of compensation, which is in terms of Exhibit ‘K’ deposited in the government treasury, must also be forwarded to the concerned Court. This exercise must be completed within 2 months from today.

Vishal Parekar

….1

113-ia-11153-2025.doc

¶25

Learned AGP submits that the aforesaid direction shall be complied

¶26

with within two weeks from today.

¶27

Considering the fact that the said petition effectively stood allowed in the aforementioned terms, we are of the opinion that the prayer made in the application can be granted even if there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner when the Application is taken up for consideration today.

¶28

The Application is disposed of by granting extension of time by two weeks.

¶29

The applicant (competent authority) to comply with the direction contained in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14^th February, 2025 in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2022, within two weeks from today.

¶30

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶31

Vishal Parekar

¶32

….2

The Sub Divisional Officer Pandharpur v. Rekha Manohar Babar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Sub Divisional Officer Pandharpur v. Rekha Manohar Babar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs the Collector Mumbai Suburban District

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs the Collector Mumbai Suburban District and Ors.

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra the the Honble District Magistrate, Pune and Ors.

Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak Since Dec Thr Lrs vs Kalyan Gas Services and Ors.

Jayprakash Pundalikrao Baviskar vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Anr.

Kalyan Gas Services through D. M. Suchak vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.