Bombay High Court

MOHAN KISHAN AHIR AND ORSversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORD AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the title dispute must be decided in appropriate civil proceedings and stayed the execution of the order dated 29 January 2026.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order that condoned a 17‑year delay in filing an appeal before the District Superintendent of Land Records, which was eventually allowed on 29 January 2026. The petitioner then moved a civil application to record these developments, seeking to amend the title, pleadings and prayer clauses. The mutation entry in the petitioner’s name dates back to 1977 and he has constructed a house on the land with local authority permission, but the respondents dispute his ownership, arguing that mutation is only for fiscal purposes and that title must be determined by a civil court. The High Court, relying on precedents (Shrikant R. Sankanwar v. Krishna Balu Naukudkar and Meena A. Rizvi v. State of Maharashtra), held that the ownership controversy must be resolved through appropriate civil proceedings and consequently stayed the execution of the order dated 29 January 2026. The civil application was allowed, permitting the amendments sought by the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether a mutation entry confers ownership rights over land.
Whether the High Court can adjudicate the title dispute in a writ petition or must refer it to civil proceedings.
Whether the order condoning the 17‑year delay in filing the appeal can be challenged.
Whether the execution of the order dated 29 January 2026 should be stayed pending resolution of the title dispute.

Subjects

mutation entry
title dispute
civil rights
writ petition
stay of execution
land records
appeal condonation

Judgment

                                         (1)                  934-CA-3813-2026


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       934 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3813 OF 2026
                                  IN WP-13676-2024

                              Mohan Kishan Ahir And Ors
                                        VERSUS
                     The Deputy Director Of Land Record And Others
                                          WITH
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 13676 OF 2024
                            Mohan Kishan Ahir And Another
                                        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.


                                       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)                      934-CA-3813-2026


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

delay of about 17 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)                  934-CA-3813-2026


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…