Bombay High Court
WP/4043/2026 of ARJUN RAGHUNATH BABAR AND ORS. Vs NAVUL MAHADEVRUPNAR THR. LRS. AND ORS. on 16 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4043 OF 2026 Arjun Raghunath Babar and Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Navul Mahadevrupnar Thr. LRs. and Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam a /w Pratik
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
912-4043-2026-WP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4043 OF 2026 Arjun Raghunath Babar and Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Navul Mahadevrupnar Thr. LRs. and Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam a/w Pratik Patil for the Petitioner Mr. Manoj Patil a/w Shubham R. Dhenge for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent – State. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 16th OCTOBER, 2026. P. C. : . Heard both sides.
2. The parties have brought on record subsequent event of execution of the order passed by the Tahasildar on 19.08.2026. The panchanama to that effect has also been carried out, which is also reflected in the reply filed by the State Government.
3. The petition is directed against the interlocutory order of rejecting application seeking stay to the execution of the order passed by the Tahasildar.
4. This Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) and if the order is found to be executed then parties were directed to Uday S. Jagtap 1 of
912-4043-2026-WP=.doc maintain status-quo, vide order dated 20.08.2026. The implementation of the order passed by Tahasildar took place on 19.08.2026. The private parties are at loggerhead. The revision preferred by the petitioner is still pending before the Sub Divisional Officer.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer shall expeditiously decide the revision on its own merits. This Court has not expressed any opinion. It is open for the parties to raise all the grievances before the Sub Divisional Officer.
6. In order to avoid further complications, status-quo granted earlier shall be continued till disposal of the Revision.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 2 of