Rashid Azizbhai Fazlani v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Revenue And Forest Department And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:30302 1 912&913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 WRIT PETITION NO. 12973 OF 2025 HEENA KAUSAR RASHID FAZLANI AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner :

Mr. Dhananjay M Shinde & Ms. Aarti T. Gadge AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. D. R. Korade Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. Abid R. Shaikh ...

AND ...

913 WRIT PETITION NO. 12974 OF 2025 RASHID AZIZBHAI FAZLANI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner :

Mr. Dhananjay M Shinde AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. V. K. Kotecha Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. Abid R. Shaikh ...

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 04.11.2025 PER COURT:

1.

Heard.

2.

Both the matters arises between the family members and relate to challenge to mutation entries made in favour of the present petitioners. Appeals are filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer by the respondents. The delay is condoned by the Sub-

2 912&913 Divisional Officer and the appeal is listed for hearing. Against the condonation of delay the petitioners filed appeals which are rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners also filed revisions before the appropriate authority in which there was request made to stay the proceedings of the appellate authority before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said request for stay of the proceedings before the appellate authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer has been rejected and, as such, the present writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned orders dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the event the proceedings before the appellate authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer are not stayed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner in the revision petitions then the petitions would be rendered infructuous.

4.

I am not impressed by the submissions as noted above. If the delay application is dismissed and if the petitioners succeed in the revision petition the order passed in the appeal would automatically stands terminated as the delay condonation application would go to the root of the matter.

3 912&913 5.

The Additional Divisional Commissioner would consider the pending revisions in accordance with law. In the event, the petitioners succeed the pending appeals would automatically stands terminated. Even if the appeals are decided, the revision petitions would not be rendered infructuous.

6.

With the above observations, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe