Bombay High Court

MOHAN KISHAN AHIR AND OTHERSversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORD AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The dispute over ownership must be adjudicated in a civil suit, and the execution of the order allowing the appeal is stayed.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an order that condoned a 47‑year delay in filing an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records. While the appeal was allowed on 29 January 2026, the petitioners sought to record this development and amend their pleadings. The court allowed the civil application, permitting amendment of the title and prayer clauses. It noted that the petitioners' mutation entry from 1977, though undisputed, does not by itself establish ownership, which must be determined by a civil court. Citing precedents, the court held that the respondents must pursue appropriate civil proceedings to resolve the title dispute and consequently stayed the execution of the order allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the order condoning a 47‑year delay in filing an appeal can be challenged by a writ petition.
Whether a mutation entry confers ownership rights over the property.
Whether the determination of civil rights concerning land ownership must be pursued in a civil suit.
Whether a stay of execution of the order allowing the appeal is appropriate.

Subjects

writ petition
mutation entry
land record
civil rights
stay of execution
title dispute
land ownership

Judgment

                                      (1)                 933-CA-3812-2026


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    933 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3812 OF 2026
                                IN WP-13675-2024

                         Mohan Kishan Ahir And Others
                                    VERSUS
                   The Deputy Director Of Land Record And Ors
                                       WITH
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 13675 OF 2024
                         Mohan Kishan Ahir And Others
                                    VERSUS
               The Deputy Director Of Land Record And Others
                                     …..
Mr. Gangakhedkar Shailendra S, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. R. Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
                                     …..

                                    CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.


                                    DATE     : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.

PC :-

1.        Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned advocate for the applicant, submits that

during the pendency of this writ petition, the appeal pending before the

respondent No.2 – The District Superintendent of Land Record, Nanded, came

to be allowed on 29 January 2026. Vide the present Civil Application, he seeks

to bring these developments of facts on record.

Kiran Kawre
                                          (2)                      933-CA-3812-2026


2.        Since the writ petition was filed challenging the order condoning the

delay of about 47 years caused in filing the appeal, the subsequent

development is required to be brought on record.

3.        In view of this, the Civil Application stands allowed.

4.        The petitioner is permitted to amend the title clause. The petitioner is

also permitted to amend the pleadings and the prayer clauses as mentioned at

page Nos.6 and 7 of the application.

5.        Apparently, the mutation entry standing in the name of the petitioner is

of the year 1977. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has constructed a

residential house over the concerned property by seeking permission from the

local body, and his name has been standing in the mutation record for a long

period.

6.        The respondent disputes the title of the petitioner over the said

property. It is submitted that the mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes

and that the civil rights needs to be crystallized by an appropriate Civil Court.

7.        Considering the objections of the respondents, it is evident that the

respondents have an objection to the ownership of the petitioner over the

subject matter of property.



Kiran Kawre
                                       (3)                  933-CA-3812-2026


8.        In view of the law laid down by this Court in Shrikant R. Sankanwar &

Ors. Vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar 1 and Meena A. Rizvi Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Ors2., prima faice, it appears that the controversy between the

parties, as raised by the respondents, would not reach its logical end unless

the respondents adopt appropriate civil proceedings to establish the civil

rights of the parties.

9.        In view of this, until further orders, execution and operation of the

order dated 29 January 2026 passed by respondent No.2 - The District

Superintendent of Land Record, Nanded, in the appeal stands stayed.



                                             [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]




1    2003(2)MHLJ276
2    2026 SCC OnLine BOM 818

Kiran Kawre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…