WP/2738/2021 of DAGDU PANDHARI MALI THROUGH G P A RAMCHANDRA DAGRU MALI Vs SONABAI BALMUKUND TAPADE AND OTHERS

1 1009 WP 2738-2021.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1009 WRIT PETITION NO. 2738 OF 2021 DAGDU PANDHARI MALI THROUGH G P A RAMCHANDRA DAGRU MALI VERSUS SONABAI BALMUKUND TAPADE AND OTHERS … Mr. Girish K. Thigale (Naik) – Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Milind Patil – Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Ms. Khushi Varma – Advocate for Respondent Nos.8 and 9 Ms. D.S. Jape – AGP for Respondent Nos.6 and 7, State … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 17.01.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner assails the or der dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Case No.23/B/2019/L, whereby the learned Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Distri ct Collector, Latur. 3. The record reveals that the Tribunal allowed the revision mai nly on the ground that the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Tahsi ldar, which was based upon the earlier order dated 12.02.1958 passed by the 2026:BHC-AUG:2055-DB 2 1009 WP 2738-2021.odt Collector, Osmanabad, was neither available nor placed on record before the Collector while deciding the proceedings. 4. Upon perusal of the impugned order and considering the submissions advanced, it is evident that the Tribunal has merely remanded the matter for adjudication after taking into consideration that the order dated 12.02.1958, which was not available at the t ime when the Collector passed the order dated 04.01.2018. Now that the said order is available and is directed the matter to be considered afresh, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 20.01 .2020 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Case No.23/B/2019/L, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The District Collector, Latur, shall decide all the issues raised by the parties independently and in accordance with law including the authentication of the order dated 12.02.1958, without being influenced by any observations made in earlier proceedings. 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms. 7. Insofar as the interim order is concerned, learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar submits that respondent Nos.8 and 9 have purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.2024. Earlier, this Court had directed the revenue authorities not to ef fect 3 1009 WP 2738-2021.odt mutation entry. In view of the subsequent registered sale deed, it is clarified that if any mutation entry is effected pursuant thereto, the same shall remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the District Collector. 8. It is open for the petitioner to challenge the registered sale deed by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/