Nitin S/O Mahadev Sawale, Thr. P.O.a., Mahadeo Laxmansa Sawale v. the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Bombay HC3 Feb 2026WP/6906/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land transfer validity; status of transferer as tribal person; revision application before Additional Commissioner, Amravati; interim stay of Additional Collector, Akola's order rejected on 30.10.2025; time-bound disposal within three months; protection of petitioner's possession; earlier protection order dated 13.11.2025; Respondent No.4 Tulshiram Premdev Solanke; WRIT PETITION NO.6906 OF 2025; Nagpur Bench; 2026:BHC-NAG:5314; disposed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs; Respondent No.1 directed to decide the pending revision application on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months; petitioner's possession not to be disturbed during pendency of the revision application. ¶¶16

Nitin S/O Mahadev Sawale, Thr. P.O.a., Mahadeo Laxmansa Sawale vs the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Validity of the transfer of land and the status of the transferer as a tribal person, arising in the revision application pending before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati.

¶¶11

Court's answer

Having regard to the issues involved, instead of recording any finding at the interlocutory stage, it is desirable that the revision application pending before Respondent No.1, Additional Commissioner, Amravati, be decided on merits.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1, Additional Commissioner, Amravati, is directed to decide the revision application expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

During the pendency of the revision application, the petitioner's possession may not be disturbed.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Coram: Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.; decided 26th MARCH, 2026) disposed of WRIT PETITION NO.6906 OF 2025 filed by Nitin s/o Mahadev Sawale (through power-of-agent Mahadeo Laxmansa Sawale) challenging the interim order dated 30.10.2025 of the Additional Commissioner, Amravati (Respondent No.1) rejecting the application for interim stay of the order passed by the Additional Collector, Akola. Although submissions touched the merits, the Court observed that the controversy revolved around the validity of transfer of land and the status of the transferer as a tribal person, and declined to record findings at that stage. The Court directed Respondent No.1 to decide the pending revision application on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months, and ordered that the petitioner's possession - asserted as long-standing, protected by this Court's order dated 13.11.2025 and undisputed by Respondent No.4 Tulshiram Premdev Solanke - may not be disturbed during the pendency of the revision. Disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5314

¶2

1 47-WP-6906-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6906 OF 2025

¶5

Nitin S/O Mahadev Sawale, Thr. P.O.A., Mahadeo Laxmansa Sawale Vs.

¶6

The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati And Others

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. Ram Karode, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. K.H. Bhondge, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Mr. J.B. Thakare h/f. Mr. A.P. Tathod, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶9

CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . DATED : 26th MARCH, 2026

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 by which the application for interim stay to the order passed by the Additional Collector, Akola came to be rejected. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsels for the respondents have advanced their submissions on certain aspects which are touching merits of the matter, it is seen that the controversy revolves around the issue about validity of transfer of land and status of transferer as tribal person. Having regard to the issues involved and contentions canvassed, instead of recording any finding at this stage, it is desirable that the revision application pending before the respondent No.1Additional Commissioner, Amravati, be decided on merits.

¶12

2 47-WP-6906-2025.odt

¶13

It is pointed out that the parties are contesting the revision application on merits and therefore, instead of entertaining the challenge in the instant petition, the main revision application need to be directed to be decided.

¶14

It has to be noted that the petitioner has asserted that he is in long standing possession of the property which is protected by an Order dated 13.11.2025 passed by this Court in this petition and further, the fact of petitioner’s possession is also not disputed by the respondent No.4 – Tulshiram Premdev Solanke.

¶15

In view of this, Respondent No.1 – Additional Commissioner, Amravati is directed to decide the revision application expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶16

In view of above, during the pendency of the revision application, the petitioner’s possession may not be disturbed and accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶17

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶18

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁

Nitin S/O Mahadev Sawale, Thr. P.O.a., Mahadeo Laxmansa Sawale v. the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin S/O Mahadev Sawale, Thr. P.O.a., Mahadeo Laxmansa Sawale v. the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

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

Sushil S/O. Kishor Dipani and Another vs Sau. Poonam W/O. Wasudev Kukreja (Rajkumari D/O. Wadhumal Dipani) and Others

Rajiv Samadhan Multipurpose Society, Hirapur, Thr. President, Shivaji Samadhan Bode vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Magistrate-Collector, Chandrapur

Shri. N. Krishnamurti Narayan and Other vs Superintendent Engineer, Maha. Airport Development Authority Ltd, Nagpur and Others

Anil S/O Marotrao Khobragade vs Nitesh S/O Shashikant Khobragade and Another

Ajay Vasantraoji Zade vs Mahadeo Gangadhar Asutkar and Another

Govinda S/O Divakar Kalbande vs Sau. Suchita W/O. Govinda Kalbande