Shaikh Junaid Shaikh Masud and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shaikh Junaid Shaikh Masud and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Without delving into the merits, the writ petition was disposed of by requesting the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar to consider and decide the petitioners' Revision Application within six weeks, keeping all contentions open for consideration in the revision, and making any mutation entry taken pursuant to the District Collector's order subject to the final decision of the Divisional Commissioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the present writ petition and a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the District Collector. +1 more

Court's answer

The question of petitioners' locus standi to file the revision application is left to be dealt with by the Divisional Commissioner at the time of hearing of the revision application.

Ratio / Principle

The Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar is requested to consider and decide the Revision Application filed by the petitioners within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

All contentions are kept open for consideration in the revision.ratio¶20
Any mutation entry taken pursuant to the order of the District Collector shall be subject to the final decision of the Divisional Commissioner.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Shaikh Junaid Shaikh Masud and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others — High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; January 27, 2026; WRIT PETITION NO.15364 OF 2025). Writ petition against the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar's order dated 9.12.2025 in Revision no.2025/ROR/REV/CR-314 rejecting the petitioners' application for stay of the District Collector, Parbani's order dated 2.9.2025 in file no.43 of 2025; the writ petition arose out of an ad-interim order in a pending revision. Respondents objected to the petitioners' locus standi (they were not parties before the District Collector; their vendors had separately filed revision in which stay was refused); the court left that objection to be examined by the Divisional Commissioner at the hearing of the revision. Without delving into merits, the court requested the Divisional Commissioner to consider and decide the petitioners' Revision Application within six weeks, kept all contentions open, and made any mutation entry pursuant to the District Collector's order subject to the final decision of the Divisional Commissioner; writ petition disposed of.

wp 15364.25.odt

2026:BHC-AUG:5034

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

107 WRIT PETITION NO.15364 OF 2025

Shaikh Junaid Shaikh Masud And Others VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. D.K. Rajput AGP for Respondents : Mr. S. A.Gaikwad Advocate for Respondents : Mr. A. G. Joshi

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : January 27, 2026

ORDER :-

Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 9.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Revision no.2025/ROR/REV/CR-314.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioners application seeking stay to the order dated 2.9.2025 passed by the learned District Collector, Parbani in file no.43 of 2025 has been rejected. Apparently, present writ petition is arising out of ad-interim order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner in pending revision application.

2 wp 15364.25.odt

Learned advocate appearing for respondents would urge that petitioners have no locus standi to file present writ petition as well as revision before Divisional Commissioner against order passed by District Collector. He points out that petitioners were not party before District Collector and they have directly filed Revision before Divisional Commissioner assailing order of District Collector. He would further point out that vendor of the petitioners, who were party in appeal before District Collector have filed independent Revision Application before Divisional Commissioner, in which prayer for grant of stay is refused.

Learned advocate appearing for respondents objects petitioners locus to file revision application, however, said issue can be dealt with by learned Divisional Commissioner at the time of hearing of revision application.

Looking to the controversy involved without delving in merit of contentions, writ petition can be disposed of as under :-

O R D E R

i. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar is requested to consider and decide Revision Application filed by petitioners within a period of six (6) weeks from today.

3 wp 15364.25.odt

ii. All contentions are kept open for consideration in Revision.

iii. Needless to state that mutation entry if taken pursuant to order of District Collector shall be subject to final decision of learned Divisional Commissioner.

iv. Writ Petition stands disposed of .

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )

AAA/-