Mrs. Bhumita Jinesh Shah @ Bhumita Jaywant Bhosale v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Revenue Dept. And ORS.

27-WP-12503-2025.doc Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12503 OF 2025 Bhumita Jinesh Shah @ Bhumita ] Jaywant Bhosale ] Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ] Respondents .....

Ms. Shivani Gautam (through V.C), for Petitioner. Mr. R.P. Kadam "B" Panel Counsel, for Respondent - State. .....

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

DATE : 3rd DECEMBER, 2025.

P.C:

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the present petition can be disposed of by directing respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Officer to decide Tenancy Appeal No.2 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of communication of this order.

SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2025.12.03 18:51:30 +0530

27-WP-12503-2025.doc 3.

The petition is disposed of. All contentions on merits are kept open. The petitioner assures that she will co-operate with the Sub Divisional Officer and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

4.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested that possession of the petitioner be protected. However, the effect of the order passed by the Tehsildar which is challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer is only effecting necessary entries in the Revenue Record. It is well settled that revenue records do not confer any title over the suit property. Request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent should not disturb the possession of the petitioner is a relief which only competent Civil Court can grant. It is not possible for this Court to grant such relief in the course of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.]