Bombay High Court
Govind Sopanrao Khandade And Others vs Ishwarprasad Jagannath Daga And Others on 12 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1353
1 25 WP 14230-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
25 WRIT PETITION NO. 14230 OF 2021
GOVIND SOPANRAO KHANDADE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
ISHWARPRASAD JAGANNATH DAGA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Rekha Mohale-Choudhari h/f. Mr. S.S. Choudhari - Advocate for
Petitioners
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Priyanka Kale i/b. Mr. S.S. Rathi
- Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 3A to 3F
Mr. B.A. Shinde - AGP for Respondent No.6, State
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4724 OF 2022
ISHWARPRASAD JAGANNATH DAGA AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Priyanka Kale i/b. Mr. S.S. Rathi
- Advocate for Petitioners
Ms. Rekha Mohale-Choudhari h/f. Mr. S.S. Choudhari - Advocate for
Respondent Nos.5 to 14
Mr. B.A. Shinde - AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, State
Mr. Shabeer A. Mulla - Advocate for Respondent No.13
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 12.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2 25 WP 14230-2021.odt
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.14230 of 2021 are challenging the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Case No.ROR/ APPEAL/ 200/ 2021, whereby the Additional Commissioner set aside the interim order passed by the Collector and closed the proceedings initiated before the Collector, Latur by the petitioners.
The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2022 challenged the notices dated 17.03.2022 and 13.04.2022 issued in Case No. 2021/ Land Reform/ CR-08 by respondent Nos.3 and 4.
3. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.14230/2021 instituted proceedings before the Collector under Section 98 read with Section 38-E(1) Explanation of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, "the Act, 1950"). In the said proceedings the Collector, Latur by an interim order dated 07.09.2021, directed the parties to maintain status quo and restrained registration of sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar. Earlier the said interim order was stayed by the Additional Commissioner.
4. Learned Counsel - Ms. Rekha Mohale-Choudhari for the petitioners submits that since the proceedings were instituted under the provisions of the Act, 1950, the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed by the respondents under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It is therefore submitted that the 3 25 WP 14230-2021.odt order passed by the Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel - Mr. V.D. Sapkal appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 3A to 3F submits that the proceedings initiated by the petitioners before the Collector itself was not maintainable. It is contended that earlier proceedings were already disposed of by way of compromise and the issues stood concluded. It is further submitted that one of the prayers pertains to restoration of mutation entries which were deleted in the year 1991, therefore on this ground he submits that Commissioner had rightly entertained the proceedings under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that once jurisdiction was exercised earlier and the proceedings stood concluded, the Collector had no authority to reopen the issue under the Act, 1950. It is submitted that the Additional Commissioner rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and closed the proceedings. Hence, he supports the impugned orders.
6. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammad Swalleh Vs. Third Additional District Judge, Meerut, reported in 1987 DGLS (SC) 799, particularly paragraph 7, which reads as under :
"It was contended before the High Court that no appeal lay from the 4 25 WP 14230-2021.odt decision of the Prescribed Authority to the District Judge. The High Court accepted this contention. The High Court finally held that though no appeal lay before the District Judge, the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and was rightly set aside by the District Judge. On that ground the High Court declined to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge. It is true that there has been some technical breach because if there is no appeal maintainable before the learned District Judge, in the appeal before the learned District Judge, the order of the Prescribed Authority could not be set aside. But the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court had come to the conclusion that the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and improper. The High Court itself could have set it aside. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case justice has been done though, as mentioned hereinbefore, technically the appellant had a point that the order of the District Judge was illegal and improper. If we reiterate the order of the High Court as it is setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution then no exception can be taken. As mentioned hereinbefore, justice has been done and as the improper order of the Prescribed Authority has been set aside, on objection can be taken."
Wherein it has been held that even if an appeal is technically not maintainable, the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with an order if injustice has been done.
7. He submits that the said principle is applicable to the present case, as the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner were against an interim order passed by the Collector. Once proceeding filed before 5 25 WP 14230-2021.odt Collector under the Act, 1950 itself was not maintainable, Commissioner is having power under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to set aside the proceeding under the Act, 1950.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheo Nand and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad and Ors., reported in 2000 DGLS (SC) 260, particularly paragraph 17, which reads as under :
"It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had filed a revision only in respect of one village before the Deputy Director under Section 48 of the Act and, therefore, the Deputy Director ought to have confined himself only to the question raised in that revision relating to that specific village. It is contended that the Deputy Director reopened the entire case in respect of all the three villages and adjudicated upon the rights of the appellants in respect of land situate in all the three villages. This, it is contended, was beyond the scope of Section 48 of the Act and consequently the judgment passed by the Deputy Director should be remanded for fresh hearing. We are not prepared to accept this contention."
to contend that revisional authorities are not restricted only to the specific grounds raised and may examine the entire matter within their jurisdiction.
9. After going through the record and considering the rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioners instituted proceedings under the Act, 1950 and the respondents filed detailed replied therein. I am not 6 25 WP 14230-2021.odt inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the proceedings, initiated before the Commissioner under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are maintainable as Commissioner is having power and competence to set aside the proceeding instituted before the Collector under the Act, 1950. Hence, impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
10. However, considering the fact that the Collector has not passed final order on merits till date and the issues raised by the petitioners including the question of maintainability, are yet to be adjudicated, it would be appropriate that the matter be decided finally by the Collector. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition No.14230/2021 partly.
11. In view thereof, the Writ Petition No.14230/2021 is partly allowed. The order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Case No.ROR/ APPEAL/ 200/ 2021 is quashed and set aside and the proceedings before the Collector, Latur, are restored.
12. The Collector, Latur, is directed to decide the proceedings afresh on merits, including the issue of maintainability, withing a period of one (1) month from today, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
7 25 WP 14230-2021.odt
13. In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.14230/2021, the Writ Petition No.4724/2022 is also disposed of as in Writ Petition No.4724/2022 consequent notices were issued and those were challenged.
14. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/