Bombay High Court

ABHISHEK ATMARAM VARINGE AND ORSversusRAMA DAMU VARINGE AND ORS

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: MILIND N JADHAV

Holding

A delay of 93 years, unexplained and unsubstantiated, cannot be condoned, and the order allowing such condonation is set aside.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a Sub‑Divisional Officer's order dated 18‑04‑2024 that allowed the private respondents to condone a 93‑year delay in contesting Mutation Entry No. 217, which was made in 1930. The private respondents claimed that the original mutation entry had infringed their right of way and sought to overturn it after discovering subsequent mutation entries. The SDO had permitted the condonation of delay despite the lack of any explanation for the long lapse, relying on precedents that favour leniency for unintentional delays. The High Court examined whether such an extensive, unexplained delay could be justified and whether the appropriate forum was a Revenue Tribunal proceeding or a civil suit. It held that the delay was unreasonable, the SDO’s reliance on case law was misplaced, and the order could not stand. Consequently, the Court set aside the SDO’s order, directed the respondents to approach the civil court for any substantive relief, and allowed the writ petition, disposing of the matter.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of condoning a 93‑year delay in challenging a mutation entry under Revenue Tribunal (RTS) proceedings
Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer correctly applied precedent in allowing the delay
The proper forum for the private respondents to seek relief – Revenue Tribunal versus civil court

Subjects

mutation entry
condonation of delay
Revenue Tribunal
civil court jurisdiction
land rights
writ petition
court jurisdiction

Judgment

13.WP.11202.2024.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 11202 OF 2024

Abhishek Atmaram Varinge and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Rama Damu Varinge and Ors. .. Respondents

....................
 Mr. Nitin Deshpande a/w. Ms. Rachna Harpale, Ms. Anjali Shinde
and Dr. Santosh K., Advocates for Petitioners.
 Mr. Mangesh Bhende, Advocate i/by Digajmaan Mishra, Mr. Arpit
K. Ashok, Mr. Yashmaan Mishra, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1
to 9.
 Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.10 and 11 – State.
......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.

Bhende, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and Mrs.

Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.10 and 11 – State.

2. The order impugned in the present Writ Petition is dated

18.04.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’) in

RTS No.108 of 2023. Copy of the same is appended at Exhibit ‘F’ -

page No.30 of the Petition. Concerned property which is the subject

matter of the said Application is Gat No.189 and Gat No.204 having

old Survey Nos.68/1 and 77/1.

1 of 4
13.WP.11202.2024.doc

3. Apart from the said property, substantial and other

properties were also standing in the name of original holder and

occupant by virtue of Mutation Entry No.217 effected as early as in the

year 1930 in the Revenue Record which is apparent from the record of

the case.

4. Private Respondents before me are 9 Appellants before the

SDO. In the year 2023, for the first time they have challenged the

Mutation Entry No.217, inter alia, in RTS proceedings on the premise

that by virtue of the said Mutation Entry, the vahivat / right of way of

the private Respondents was trampled with by the Talathi while

effecting the said Mutation Entry 217 in the year 1930, inter alia, in

respect of the subject Survey Numbers as also three other Survey

Numbers.

5. It is averred by the private Respondents that the descendants

of the original owner expired in the year 1969 which led to passing of

further Mutation Entry No.658 by bringing on record his legal heirs.

There is also reference to a further Mutation Entry Nos.702 and 789,

inter alia, in respect of the subject lands for bringing on record the

legal heirs of the deceased / demised holders / owners.

6. Grievance of the private Respondents is that when Mutation

Entry No.217 was effected in the year 1930, names their predecessor-

in-title was dislodged. However, the delay of 93 years is prima facie

2 of 4
13.WP.11202.2024.doc

unexplained. The learned SDO has considered the Application for

seeking condonation of delay which is sans any reasons and merely on

the basis of above reason, returned the finding that on an overall

consideration, the Application for condonation of delay of 93 years

deserves to be allowed and the Appeal deserved to be admitted.

7. Prima facie the Court observes that there is humongous

delay of 93 years, rather it is unexplained. Pursuant to the original

Mutation Entry, there is reference given to atleast 7 Mutation Entries

which have been effected thereafter in the impugned order itself while

tracing out the trajectory of the holders and their legal heirs who are

their successors-in-title. If at all private Respondents are aggrieved,

the correct course of action for them would be to approach the Civil

Court seeking appropriate declaratory relief and not by way of RTS

proceedings to challenge a long standing settled Mutation Entry after

93 years. It is seen that cause of action by private Respondents is

primarily based on the original Mutation Entry No.217 of the year

1930.

8. Learned Trial Court / SDO while condoning the delay has

referred to certain judgments passed by this Court and applied the

ratio of the said judgments to the present case by holding that

unintentional lapses of a litigant should not result in closing the doors

of the Court permanently and effort of Court should not be one of

3 of 4
13.WP.11202.2024.doc

finding means to pull down the shutters of adjudicatory jurisdiction

before a party who seeks justice on account of any mistake committed

by him, but to see whether it is possible to entertain his grievance, if it

is genuine. In my opinion the unexplained humongous delay of 93

years and facts of the present case do not justify the sufficient cause

made out by the private Respondents at all.

9. The citations referred to and relied upon by the learned SDO

do not apply to the facts of the present case while condoning the delay

of 93 years, much less without even mentioning that much delay and

merely stating that on a consolidated consideration of the facts, the

delay will have to be condoned and this is unacceptable and cannot be

countenanced.

10. The order dated 18.04.2024 is prima facie not sustainable

and deserves to be quashed and set aside. As such, the impugned order

dated 18.04.2024 is set aside.

11. Leave and liberty is granted to the aggrieved private

Respondents to approach the Civil Court for any substantive relief that

they may have in the subject property strictly in accordance with law.

12. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and

disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.02.18
10:19:22 +0530
4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…