[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gundaji Shivling ... vs Laxman Nagorao Karle And Ors on 29 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3720
901 WP No.2119.1998
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2119 OF 1998
1 Gundaji s/o Shivling Bhalake
(Died) Through his L.Rs.
1A. Smt. Rukhminibai Gundaji Bhalake
1B. Shankar s/o Gundaji Bhalake
1C. Ram s/o Gundaji Bhalake
All are major and
All R/o : Takali (Bk.), Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded
.... Petitioners
Versus
1 Laxman s/o Nagorao Karle,
Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o : Kesarli, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded
2. The Additional Collector,
Nanded.
3. The State of Maharashtra
.... Respondents
***
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh S. Patil
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. M. M. Ambhore a/w Mr. D.P.borkar
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 29th January, 2026
JUDGMENT :
-
1. The petitioners have raised a challenge to the judgment
and order dated 16.06.1997 rendered by the Additional Collector,
Nanded in case No. 1996/Bhusu/Celing Water/Jamin/CR/67.
2. The petitioners represent the legal heirs of the
deceased Gundaji. Initially, land bearing Gat No. 93, ad-measuring
3A-22G situated at village Takli (Bk.), was allotted to Gundaji in
March 1976, pursuant to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. However, the possession of the
said land was subsequently withdrawn. During a subsequent
allotment process for alternative land at Sagroli, Tq. Degloor, all
previous allottees were granted land except for the petitioner;
instead, the subject land was allotted to respondent No. 1 Laxman.
3. In response to this discrepancy, the deceased Gundaji
submitted applications to the Collector, Nanded, and other
concerned Revenue Authorities. Consequently, the Additional
Collector issued a communication dated 16.04.1996, confirming
that the land had been allotted to respondent No. 1 in place of the
petitioner, later issued directions to the Tahsildar, Biloli, to verify
the status and rectify the allotment in favour of the petitioner.
Acting upon these directions, the Revenue Inspector, Sangroli,
recovered 1H-6R of land from Gat No. 69 at village Sangroli from
the custody of Respondent No. 1 and handed over possession to
Gundaji on 20.06.1996.
4. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 presented an
application before respondent No. 2. On 16.06.1997, the
respondent No. 2 passed an order granting a stay on the execution
of the order dated 16.04.1996 which had been issued by the
Tahsildar, Biloli.
5. Aggrieved by the stay granted on 16.06.1997, the
petitioners have approached the Bombay High Court by way of the
present writ petition to challenge the validity of the said order.
6. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
impugned stay order dated 16.06.1997 was passed without due
regard to the fact that respondent No. 1 had no right over the land,
as the authorities had already determined the allotment to be
erroneous. By granting a stay, the respondent No. 2 has effectively
perpetuated an illegality and deprived the legal heirs of the
deceased Gundaji from legitimate entitlement of a long-standing
claim. In view of these facts, it is prayed to allow the the petition.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that
the petitioners' reliance on an allotment from March 1976 is hit by
the doctrine of laches and delay, as they failed to assert their rights
for nearly two decades, during which time Respondent No. 1's
interests were established. As such, it is prayed to dismiss.
8. The learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 3 supported
the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for litigating sides
and perusing the material on record, it is evident that pursuant to
the order issued by the Additional Collector, the Tahsildar, Biloli
verified the status of the said property. Consequently, the Revenue
Inspector placed the petitioner in actual physical possession of land
bearing Gat No. 69, admeasuring 1H-06R. A Possession Receipt
was executed on 20.06.1996. Thereafter, the Additional Collector,
Nanded, vide the impugned order dated 16.06.1997, granted a
stay on the order passed by the Tahsildar, Biloli, dated 14.06.1995.
10. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the orders
rendered by the various Revenue Authorities, including the
Tahsildar, Collector, and Divisional Commissioner, are interlocutory
in nature. The primary issue concerning the rightful allotment of
land Gat No. 69 remains pending adjudication before the Additional
Collector.
11. This Court notes that while admitting the present Writ
Petition, interim protection was granted to the petitioners, thereby
maintaining the status quo regarding the possession which they
acquired on 20.06.1996. This interim arrangement ensures that no
irreversible prejudice is caused to either party during the pendency
of the primary dispute before the Revenue Authority.
12. In view of the above circumstances, the substantial
issue involved in the petition is presently the subject matter of the
pending proceedings before the Additional Collector. Therefore,
instead of adjudicating the lis on merits at this stage, this Court
deems it appropriate to direct the Additional Collector to decide the
pending issue expeditiously.
13. The Additional Collector, Nanded, is hereby directed to
conclude the adjudication process and decide the dispute within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
14. With the above directions, the present Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
15. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
