Bombay High Court
TAIBAI GAMJYA CHOUDHARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. MINISTER REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The review petition is dismissed; the order dated 5 February 2024 stands.
Summary
The petitioner, Taibai Gamjya Choudhari, filed a review petition seeking to recall the order dated 5 February 2024 in a property dispute, alleging that he was unaware of mutation entries (Nos. 1074 and 1075) made on 25 June 2021 which added other heirs to the revenue record. He contended that, based on a civil court order, he alone was entitled to the properties and therefore the earlier order should be set aside. The Court examined the mutation entries and observed that the order had already been implemented and that the revenue record reflected the inclusion of other legal representatives alongside the petitioner. It found no prejudice to the petitioner and concluded that there was no ground to recall the 5 February 2024 order. Consequently, while condoning the delay in filing the review petition, the Court allowed the interim application and dismissed the review petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the review petition can be condoned.
- Whether the order dated 5 February 2024 should be recalled on the ground of the mutation entries and the petitioner's claim of exclusive entitlement.
- Whether the petitioner suffers any prejudice as a result of the order's implementation.
Subjects
- review petition
- condonation of delay
- mutation entry
- property dispute
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- order recall
- prejudice
Judgment
77-rpwst-24625-2026-wp-4260-2021.doc
varsha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 24625 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7228 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4260 OF 2021
Taibai Gamjya Choudhari … Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through Minister … Respondents
Revenue and Forest Department and Ors
Mr. Anilkumar Patil a/w. Ms. Rishabh Tiwari, Ms. Ahitali Bhogle, Mr.
Digvijay Patil i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl GP for the Respondent-State.
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2026.09.16
19:18:36
+0530
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7228 OF 2026
1. This application is for condonation of delay in filing the review
petition. The review petition is filed to recall and review the order
dated 5th February 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that pursuant to the order impugned in the writ petition, necessary
Page no. 1 of 2
77-rpwst-24625-2026-wp-4260-2021.doc
inquiry was already made and mutation entry Nos. 1074 and 1075
were effected on 25th June 2021. He submits that when the writ
petition was disposed of, the petitioner was not aware about the
said mutation entries. He therefore submits that in view of the order
passed by the civil court, only the petitioner is exclusively entitled to
the properties which are the subject matter of the order impugned in
the petition.
2. I have perused the mutation entries. It appears that pursuant
to the order that was impugned in the writ petition, necessary inquiry
is made and the name of other heirs and legal representatives are
added in the revenue record along with the petitioner’s name.
3. Hence, when the order dated 5th February 2024 was passed,
the order impugned in the writ petition was already implemented.
Even otherwise, I do not see any prejudice to the petitioner. There is
no ground to recall the order dated 5th February 2024.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, delay is condoned
and the interim application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
For the reasons recorded above, the review petition is dismissed.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 2 of 2
Checking your session…