Rajhoji Narayan Jaybhayee And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:19100 969wp4740-26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 969 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4740 OF 2026 IN WP/3004/2024 Rajhoji Narayan Jaybhayee And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others ...

Mr. Jadhavar Shivprasad G., Advocate for Applicants Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents State Mr. Sameer S. Kurandkar, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

Dated : 28th April, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

This is an Application for the following prayer. "(B) The Hon'ble Court by its order dated 13.03.2026 continued the interim order dated 01.04.2024 for a period of one months and the same may kindly be extended for a period of one month, in the interest of justice necessary order."

2.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicants that the proceedings are pending before the Hon'ble Minister which are directed to be decided within a period of three (3) months after all the concerned parties are duly served.

3.

The order dated 13.03.2026 reads as under:

". Mr. S. G. Jadhavar, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Revision Application filed by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Minister Revenue is pending since 16.01.2024. He prays for a limited relief to

969wp4740-26 direct the State Authorities to decide the pending Revision within a time bound manner.

2.

Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent no.7 and Mr. S. D. Ghayal, learned Addl. AGP have no objection to such limited relief.

3.

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Authorities to decide the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners within a period of three months after all concerned parties have been duly served. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

4.

Status-quo granted by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2024 shall remain in force for further period of one month.

4.

The Advocate for the Applicants submits that, the order of status quo be extended for a further period of two months. 5.

The Application is opposed by the learned Advocate for the other-side.

6.

Since this Court, by the above referred order, directed the State Authorities to decide the Revision within a period of three months after all concerned parties have been duly served, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). No further prayer for extension of the status quo order would be entertained. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) JPChavan