Bombay High Court

M/S. AAMBY VALLEY LIMITED THR. ITS AUTHORIZED REPRE. SHIVAJI D. VYAVAHAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided: 1 October 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The order of the Divisional Commissioner condoning the delay was quashed as it was based on factual misrepresentation and cannot be sustained.

Summary

The petitioner, M/s Aamby Valley Ltd., challenged a revision order by the Divisional Commissioner of Pune who had condoned a delay of over 16 years in a mutation matter on the basis that the applicant was unaware of certain mutation entries. The petitioner alleged that the condonation application contained factual misrepresentations, noting that a civil suit filed by the respondent in 2010 referenced the same mutation entries. The court examined the submissions and found that the respondent could not dispute the factual inaccuracies pointed out by the petitioner. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the Divisional Commissioner’s order, while reserving the respondent’s right to seek rectification of mutation entries if the civil suit succeeds. The writ petition was allowed, affirming that civil court orders bind revenue authorities for mutation corrections.

Issues considered

Whether the Divisional Commissioner’s order condoning a delay of 16 years and 4 months on the ground of lack of knowledge of mutation entries is legally valid.
Whether factual misrepresentation in the application for condonation warrants quashing of the order.
Whether a civil court order is binding on revenue authorities for the purpose of rectifying mutation entries.

Subjects

condonation of delay
mutation entry
revenue law
civil court order
quashing
high court
writ petition

Judgment

                                          26-WP-10135-2026.DOC_0.ODT




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                WRIT PETITION NO.10135 OF 2026


M/S. Aamby Valley Limited Thr. Its Authorized      …Petitioner
Repre. Shivaji D.Vyavahare
  Versus
State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary And Ors.   …Respondents


Mr. Drupad S. Patil a/w Suyash S. Sule, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Moorjani a/w Samsher Garud & D.Parekh i/b Jayakar &
Partners, for the Respondent No.5
Y. D. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent/State.



                     CORAM:      ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                     DATED :     01st October 2026
PC:-


1.     Heard learned Counsel for both sides.


2.     By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the

order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, Division, Pune

in Revision Application No.RTS/Rev./576/2025 vide dated 19 th

January 2026, the Divisional Commissioner was pleased to

condone a delay of 16 years and 4 months on the ground that the

Revision Applicant therein was not aware of the mutation entry

No.327 and also subsequent Mutation Entry No.581.




                               Page 1
                                           26-WP-10135-2026.DOC_0.ODT




3.      The said order is challenged by the Petitioner. Learned

Counsel submits that an application was filed for condonation of

delay, wherein an averment is made that the Applicant therein is

not aware as of the proceedings until July-2025. However, the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Civil Suit has

been filed by the Respondent in the year March 2010, wherein

reference has been made the order passed on 28 th November 2008

and Mutation Entry No.327. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner submits that there is complete factual misrepresentation

in the application for condonation of delay made before the

Divisional Commissioner and that the Divisional Commissioner has

condoned the delay only on the ground that the Applicant therein

(Respondent herein) was not aware of the order passed dated 28 th

November 2008.


4.      Considered the submission and perused the record. The

learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5- Original

Applicant before the Divisional Commissioner has not been able to

dispute the factual aspects pointed by the Petitioner. Considering

the submission of the parties, the order passed by the Divisional

Commissioner cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and




                               Page 2
Akash
                                           26-WP-10135-2026.DOC_0.ODT




set aside. However, liberty is reserved to be Respondent No.5 that

in the event he succeeds in the Special Civil Suit filed bearing

No.649 of 2010 he would be at liberty to apply the Revenue

Authorities for rectification of mutation entries. It is settled law

that, the order passed by the Civil Court would be binding upon

the Revenue Authorities and such application is filed pursuant to

the order passed by the Civil Court, the Revenue Authorities would

rectify the mutation entry.


5.      Considering the above observations the Writ Petition is

allowed in terms of prayer Clause ‘A’.




                                          [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]




                                Page 3
Akash

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.