Bombay High Court

SUBHASH RAMESHWAR AGRAWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The State Government’s order remitting the matter after a 24‑year delay is ultra vires and must be quashed.

Summary

The petitioner, Subhash R. Agrawal, challenged a 14 October 2024 order by the State of Maharashtra that remitted a revision application concerning Mutation Entry No. 2534 (dated 1 June 1989) back to the Sub‑Divisional Officer, despite a 24‑year delay. The petitioner argued that under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, revisions must be filed within five years, or at most three years with State Government permission, and that the State Government itself lacks authority to entertain a revision after such a prolonged period. The respondent brother contended that the mutation entry was erroneous and that the State Government could condone delay and entertain the revision. The Court examined the statutory limits, citing Supreme Court precedents that require a reasonable time (generally three years) for exercising revisional powers and that ultra‑vires exercise after 17‑plus years is unacceptable. Concluding that the State Government’s order was beyond its jurisdiction, the Court quashed the order and allowed the writ petition, directing the parties to seek civil remedies for their property rights.

Issues considered

Whether the State Government can entertain a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code after a delay of 24 years.
Whether the delay in filing the revision can be condoned as reasonable under the statutory scheme.
Whether the mutation entry made in 1989 is valid and can be set aside by the revenue authorities.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 247, 257

Subjects

mutation entry
revision
limitation period
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
ultra vires
delay condonation
property law
revenue law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:19654
wp-11158-2025.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11158 OF 2025

Subhash Rameshwar Agrawal,
Age: 71 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Shirpur,
Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. ..Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Secretary,
Land Revenue, Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development and Fisheries
Department, Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Hon'ble Minister,
Land Revenue, Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development and Fisheries
Department, Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. The Additional Commissioner,
Nashik, Division Nashik. 3.

4. The Additional Collector,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. 4.

5. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur,
Dist. Dhule. 5.

6. The Circle Officer, 6.
Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur,
Dist. Dhule.

7. Shri Jagdish Rameshwar Agrawal,
Age: 74 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Shirpur,
Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Katneshwakar, Senior Advocate
i/b. Mr. D.R. Bagul
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar
Advocate for Respondent No.7 : Mr. A.P. Bhandari
...
wp-11158-2025.odt
(2)

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : APRIL 18, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 30, 2026

JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with consent of parties.

2. Present petition takes exception to order dated

14.10.2024 passed by respondent nos.1 and 2 in Revision Application

No.3124/PK.31/J-6A, whereby respondent no.1 remitted matter back

to Sub Divisional Officer for fresh inquiry by condoning delay in

raising challenge to Mutation Entry No.2534 effected on 01.06.1989

in respect of survey number 170/3, situated at Shirpur.

3. The petitioner contends that on 01.06.1989, petitioner

and respondent no.7 jointly purchased suit land under registered sale

deed in the name of respondent no.7 i.e. elder brother. After purchase

of property, respondent no.7 made an application for joint mutation in

the name of both brothers. Accordingly, on 30.06.1989, Mutation

Entry No. 2534 was certified. Respondent No.7 had never objected

joint mutation entry. The petitioner as well as respondent availed loan

facilities from bank on the basis of aforesaid mutation entry in the

year 2001 and 2005, respectively. However in the year 2013, when

dispute erupted in family, respondent no.7 filed Revision Application

No.5 of 2013 before Sub-Divisional Officer under section 257 of
wp-11158-2025.odt
(3)

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code assailing Mutation Entry No.2534

after 24 years.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer rejected revision application.

His order was confirmed by Additional Collector as well as Additional

Commissioner. However, State Government entertained respondent's

revision application by setting aside order passed by all three

revisional authorities and remitted matter back to Sub Divisional

Officer, Shirpur, by condoning delay of 24 years.

5. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned senior advocate appearing for

petitioner would submit that all three authorities had rightly declined

to entertain challenge to mutation entry made after 24 years. Section

257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not empower authority

to entertain revision application beyond five years. Even State

Government would not be legally competent to entertain revision

against an order passed by revenue officer after 24 long years. Even

State Government may entertain challenge within reasonable period

up to three years. He would therefore urge that impugned order is

passed overstepping parameters of jurisdiction, hence, liable to be

quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, Mr. Bhandari, learned advocate appearing for

respondent no.7 would submit that Mutation Entry No.2534 was

contrary to record. The sale deed of 1989 was in the name of

respondent no. 7. If mutation entry would have given effect deference
wp-11158-2025.odt
(4)

to sale deed, there was no reason to incorporate name of petitioner as

co-owner in record of rights. According to him, unless a person is a

holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee or tenant, his name cannot be

entered in record of rights. In present case, there is nothing to show

any right of petitioner in property. As such, mutation entry was

nonest. The State Government has power to call for record and

proceedings at any time and set aside order passed by revenue

authorities. Even State Government has authority to condone delay

and permit revenue officers to entertain revision application beyond

period of five years. He would therefore urge to maintain the order

impugned.

7. Having considered submissions advanced by learned

advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that

dispute in writ petition pertains to Mutation Entry No.2534 that was

effected on 01.06.1989 in respect of plot no.3 which is part of Gat

No.170/3 situated at Shirpur, District Dhule. Admittedly, respondent

no.7 raised challenge to mutation entry after 24 years. The record

indicates that respondent no.7 had knowledge of joint mutation entry

in his name and in the name of petitioner. However, for the first time

it is challenged in the year 2013 by filing a revision before Sub

Divisional Officer/respondent no.5.

8. Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code provides

for appeal from any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey
wp-11158-2025.odt
(5)

officer specified in column 1 and 2 of schedule. Admittedly, order

directing mutation entry is appealable in terms of Section 247 of

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In present case, respondent no.7

invoked revisional jurisdiction of respondent no.5 under section 257

of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The proviso to sub-clause (1) of

Section 257 prescribes that no such proceeding under sub-section (1)

and (2) shall be initiated by any revenue or survey officer after expiry

of five years from the date of decision or order of subordinate officer,

except with permission of State Government. In present case, it is

apparent that previous permission was not obtained from State

Government before filing or entertaining revision by Sub Divisional

Officer. Pertinently, Sub-section (4) of Section 257 enables State

Government to modify, annual or reverse any order issued under sub-

section (1) or (2). Although, no limitation is prescribed for

entertaining such revision by State Government and there is no

restriction on power of State Government to permit any revenue

officer to entertain revision application, it is not expected that such

powers are exercised without adhering to concept of reasonable

period.

9. In case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs.

Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others reported in (2009) 9 SCC

352, Hon’ble Supreme Court considered parameters of jurisdiction of
wp-11158-2025.odt
(6)

State Government under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code. In Para 11 and 12, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :

“11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statue does not
prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it
does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time;
rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so
because the law does not expect a settled thing to be
unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature
does not provide for any length of time within which the
power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo
motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power
within reasonable time is inherent therein.
12. Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which power
of revision may be exercised would be three years under
Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject,
of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case,
but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17
years is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power
by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of
process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming
that the order of Tehsildar passed on 30-3-1976 is flawed
and legally not correct.”

10. Recently, in case of Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran

and Another reported in 2025 6 SCR 253, Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that only when sufficient cause or reasons given for delay by

litigant and opposition of other side is equally balanced or stand on

equal footing, Court may consider merits of main matter for the

purpose of condoning delay. The delay should not be condoned

merely as an act of generosity. Pursuit of substantial justice must not

come at cost of causing prejudice to opposing party.
wp-11158-2025.odt
(7)

11. In wake of exposition of law by Hon’ble Supreme Court,

particularly as regards to exercise of jurisdiction under section 257 of

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, this Court finds that State

Government itself was not empowered to entertain lis after lapse of

24 years. As such, it could not have condoned delay and relegated

matter to Sub Divisional Officer to entertain revision after 24 years.

The exercise of jurisdiction by State Government in facts of case

cannot be countenanced and has to be termed as ultra vires. In result,

impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

12. Hence, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(B).

13. Needless to state here that parties are at liberty to

establish their rights by filing appropriate proceeding before

Competent Civil Court without impeded by impugned revenue entry.

14. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…