Dharmraj Baburao Pawar v. Tahsildar Kallam And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:34473 1 927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 927 WRIT PETITION NO. 14768 OF 2025 DHARMRAJ BABURAO PAWAR

VERSUS

TAHSILDAR KALLAM AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Datta A. Madake AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. V. K. Kotecha ...

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 10.12.2025 PER COURT:

1.

Heard.

2.

The learned AGP submits that the concerned authority / The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kallamb, before whom the revision is pending would decide the interim stay application / revision petition within a period of two (02) weeks. 3.

Considering the same, this court would not interfere in the impugned order and the petitioner to seek his remedy before the revisional authority.

4.

However, for the period of two (02) weeks, the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 shall not be implemented so as to enable the petitioner to seek his remedy before the revisional authority. The

2 927 implementation of the order of the Mamlatdar is deferred for a period of two (02) weeks.

5.

However, it is observed that, this order is not on the merits and the concerned authority would decide the proceeding pending before it on it's own merits without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

6.

It is also made clear that I have not issued notice to the respondents as that would consume further time and the protection is only for two weeks.

7.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe