The Supreme Court's directive on automatic lapsing of stays applies only to civil and criminal trials, not to quasi-judicial proceedings under land laws.

JUDGMENT :-

1. This writ petition is filed challenging an order dated 23 June, 2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Bench at Pune (for short “the Revenue Tribunal”) by which the Revenue Tribunal has held that an interim stay which was granted by it to an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer confirming the orders passed by the Tehsildar as impugned in the revision proceedings filed by the petitioner, stood automatically vacated in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation” (2018)16 SCC 299.

2. Thus, the issue which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, was correct in applying the orders and observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 36 and 37 of its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing Road Agency’s case (supra), to hold that the interim relief granted by the Revenue Tribunal in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 10 December 2018 stood automatically revoked on a period of more than six months having passed.

3. In brief, the relevant facts are:- The dispute between the parties before the Revenue Tribunal, Pune, concerns a land situated at Village Boroti, Taluka – Akkalkot, District – Solapur. There was a old previous litigation between the parties, which according to the petitioner culminated into final orders passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 17 March, 1971. The case of the petitioner is that however despite such orders passed by the Revenue Tribunal in petitioner’s favour, which recognized the petitioner’s rights on such land as also the consequent revenue entries made in that regard, the Tahsildar, Akkalkot had passed an order dated 6 December, 2016 whereby the petitioner’s rights as reflected in the revenue records in the ‘other rights column’ were sought to be de-recognized. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by the Tahsildar in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO, by an order dated 28 November, 2017 confirmed the order dated 6 December, 2016 passed by the Tahsildar against which the petitioner filed the revision in question, before the Revenue Tribunal (Revision Application No.SH-II 05/2018) under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948. On such revision application filed by the petitioner, an interim order dated 10 December, 2018, came to be passed by the tribunal, whereby the order passed by the SDO and subject matter of the challenge in the proceedings of the revision, came to be stayed by the Revenue Tribunal till further date, while issuing notice to the respondents. The said order of the Revenue Tribunal needs to be noted, which reads thus:-

“ Order below ‘Stay appln’ in Revision No. SH/II/5/2018 M atter is taken on board at the request of Ld. Advocate for the applicant. He has produced notice issued by Dy. Supdt. of Land Records, Akkalkot, dated 21/11/2018 and submitted that if the stay to the impugned order is not granted, multiplicity of litigation will be created.

Read the judgment & order passed by both the tribunals below. Matter is pending at the stage of ‘hearing before admission’. Therefore, when the matter is called on Board by showing urgency, I have no alternative other than to pass the following interim order with time limit.

Order The judgment & order passed by SDO, which is under challenge in the revision application is hereby stayed till further date. However, this date shall not be interpreted for any of the purposes in respect of the action proposed under the notice dated 21/11/2018.

Issue notice to the respondents as to why the stay g