MAHALINGAVVA SATLINGAPPA HUKKER DECD. THR. LHRS MARUTI SATLINGAPPA HUKKERI AND ORSversusLAXMAN BABU JADHAV AND ORS

                               1               WP.11699-22.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             WRIT PETITION NO. 11699 OF 2022

1.    Mahalingavva Satlingappa Hukkeri
      deceased, through L.Rs.

A.    Maruti Satlingappa Hukkeri,
      Age 71 years, Occ. Agriculture

B.    Vilas Satlingappa Hukkeri,
      Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture.

C.    Nijlingappa Satlingappa Hukkeri,
      Age 53 years, Occ. Agricutlure.

D.    Suvarna Mahadeo Kabadagi,
      Age 68 years, Occ. Household.

E.    Parvati Channappa Chimmat,
      Age 58 years, Occ. Household.

F.    Drakshayani Vijay Arbhavi,
      Age 55 years, Occ. Household,
      All r/o. At Baswan Galli, Sankeshwar
      Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgavi,
      Karnataka

2.    Vilas Satlingappa Hukkeri,
      Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture,
      R/o. At Baswanna Galli, Sankeshwar
      Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgavi.

3.    Prakash Bharma Jadhav
      (since deceased through L.Rs.

3A.   Smt. Babytai Prakash Jadhav,
      Age 48 years, Occ. Household.

3B.   Sou. Basavshatri Basgonda Patil,
      Age 29 years, Occ. Household.
                                2                        WP.11699-22.odt

3C.   Shri. Tejas Prakash Jadhav,
      Age 29 years, Occ. Household.
      All r/o. Khandal, Tq. Gadhinglaj,
      Dist. Kolhapur, currently residing at
      Sankeshwar Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.
                                         … Petitioners

            Versus

1.    Laxman Babu Jadhav,
      Age 64 years, Occ. Agriculture,
      R/o. At Khandala, Tq. Gadhinglaj,
      Dist.Kolhapur.

2.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through the Hon’ble Minister,
      Department of Revenue, having his
      office at Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

3.    Additional Commissioner Revenue,
      Pune Division, Pune, having his office
      at Council Hall, Vidhan Bhavan,
      Bund Garden Road, Camp Pune-1.

4.    Additional Collector, Kolhapur,
      Having his office at Nagala Park,
      Kolhapur.

5.    Sub Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj,
      having her office at Gadhinglaj,
      Dist. Kolhapur.

6.    Tehsildar of Gadhinglaj,
      having his office at Gadhinglaj,
      Dist. Kolhapur.                          ... Respondents

                                ...
 Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Chetan Patil a/w Adv. Ajay Raje
              Nimbalkar i/by Adv. Mrinal Shelar
  Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Tejpal Ingale a/w Adv.
                      Vaibhav Kupawade
 Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 to 6 : Mr. Santosh A. Jadhav
                    Govt. Counsel Panel ‘B’.
                                …
                                 3                        WP.11699-22.odt



                    CORAM :          SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                    RESERVED ON   : 16.09.2026
                    PRONOUNCED ON : 23.09.2026.

JUDGMENT :


1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

by the consent of the parties.


2.    Being     aggrieved   by       judgment      and   order    dated

31.03.2022 passed by learned Minister quashing the orders

passed by Commissioner and Collector and restoring common

order dated 03.04.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Officer in

Appeal No.65 of 2016 62 of 2016, petitioners, original

opponents, have preferred this writ petition under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.


3.       The controversy pertains to land Gut No.374 situated at

Mouje Khandal, Taluka Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur originally

owned by Krushna Bhat and Appa Bhat. One Dharma Lingappa

Jadhav was tenant in the suit land, in whose favour order was

passed    under   Section   32(G)       of   the    Bombay    Tenancy

Agricultural Land Act (hereinafter referred to as “B.T.L. Act”).

He had paid the amount and secured certificate under Section
                             4                     WP.11699-22.odt

32(M) on 13.02.1969. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 claimed to

be purchaser of the suit land and the mutation entry No.3421

was recorded in their name by order dated 08.03.2016. Being

aggrieved by the order passed by Tahsildar appeals were

preferred by respondent No.1 before SDO emanating from

common orders dated 03.04.2017, the matter reached learned

Minister in revision and the common order of the SDO is

upheld.


4.    Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Chetan Patil

submits that learned Minister being Revisional Authority had

no jurisdiction to determine ownership of the suit land and to

hold that sale deed is bad in law for want of previous sanction

under Section 43 of the B.T.L. Act. It is further submitted that

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 purchased the suit land by registered

sale deed on 29.07.1983 which has not been challenged so far.

Any challenge to the sale deed would be barred by time. It is

further submitted that petitioners were armed with the decree

passed in Regular Civil Suit No.110 of 1984 which is confirmed

upto Supreme Court, upholding the rights of the petitioners.

Besides that RCS.No.31 of 1993 filed by respondent No.1

Laxman was dismissed. Thus, in the absence of any challenge
                              5                     WP.11699-22.odt

to the title of the petitioners, it is impermissible to doubt the

sale transaction and resort to action under Section 84 (C) of

the Act. Impugned order is stated to be perverse and patently

illegal.


5.     Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 Mr.

Tejpal Ingale would submit that the title of the petitioners was

not under consideration in RCS.No.110 of 1984.                The

possession of the party was the predominant consideration for

granting relief of injunction. In the absence of permission, sale

of land on 29.07.1983 is invalid as per Section 43 of the Act. It

is further submitted that the common order passed by SDO on

03.04.2017 is rightly upheld in the impugned judgment. It is

vehemently submitted that learned Minister has not decided

any issue of title and he is empowered to consider Section 43

and 84(C) of the Act.


6.     I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I have

gone through the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as

well as judgment passed by the Courts in RCS.No.110 of 1984.

Following are the relevant dates and events.

 Sr.        Date                        Event
 No.
                                6                      WP.11699-22.odt

     1. 13.02.1969     Dharma Jadhav was issued certificate under
                       Section 32(M).
     2. 17.10.1971     Dharma adopted petitioner No.3 Prakash by a
                       deed.
     3. 24.02.1972     Dharma executed agreement to sell to
                       Satlingappa.
     4. 01.09.1977     Respondent No.1 Laxman was bequeathed
                       the suit land by Will executed by Dhrma.
     5. 29.07.1983     Petitioner No.3 Prakash executed sale deed to
                       petitioner No.1.
     6. 08.03.2016     Mutation entry No.3421 was recorded in the
                       name of petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
     7. 03.04.2017     Common order of SDO quashing mutation
                       entry and directing action under Section 84
                       (C).
     8. 07.04.2018     Order of Collector allowing Appeal No.184 of
                       2017 and restoring mutation entry.
     9. 21.12.2018     Order of     Commissioner    dismissing    the
                       revision.
 10. 31.03.2022        Impugned order of learned Minister allowing
                       revision.


7.      Petitioner No.1 had filed RCS.No.110 of 1984 for

injunction,    which   was    decreed    on   19.06.1996.      Being

aggrieved, RCS.No.79 of 1998 was preferred, which was

dismissed on 04.04.2000. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1

preferred Second Appeal No.201 of 2002, which was dismissed

on 25.07.2015. Review preferred against it was also rejected.

His SLP. No.26868 of 2015 was dismissed on 24.09.2015.


8.      Respondent No.1 had filed RCS.No.31 of 1993 for
                            7                     WP.11699-22.odt

declaration. It was dismissed for default on 24.02.1999. It

was sought to be restored and separate application was filed

for condonation of delay of about two years and six months.

The application for condonation of delay bearing CMA.No.105

of 2001 was rejected on 14.09.2018. Thus, the suit preferred

by respondent No.1 remained dismissed for default.


9.       One Dharma Jadhav was the tenant who was armed

with certificate issued under Section 32(M) dated 13.02.1969.

He is the tenant purchaser which is not disputed by both the

sides.     Petitioner No.3 was being adopted by him on

17.10.1971.     The adoption has not been challenged by

respondent No.1.    In pursuance of agreement to sell dated

24.04.1972, registered sale deed was executed on 29.07.1983

by petitioner No.3 Prakash in favour of petitioner No.1 which

is also not subjected to any challenge. Pertinently RCS.No. 31

of 1993 lodged by respondent No.1 was dismissed for default

and it was not restored. Petitioner No.1 claims title and

possession vide sale deed dated 29.07.1983 and on that

strength she succeeded in RCS.No.110 of 1984, which is

confirmed upto Supreme Court.
                                8                         WP.11699-22.odt

10.   The mutation entry No.3421 has been recorded on the

basis of registered sale deed. The possession of petitioner No.1

is endorsed by all Courts in hierarchy. Thus, there is strong

prima facie case to show title of the petitioner.


11.   No permission was secured by petitioner No.1 by the

competent       authority   before   purchasing     the    land.    The

transaction is hit by Section 43 of the Act. But there is no

declaration of the competent civil Court or the Revenue

Authority to that effect. The respondent No.1 had opportunity

to challenge the sale deed or to diligently prosecute RCS.No.

31 of 1993, which was dismissed for default.                 Now any

challenge to the sale deed would be barred by time. Unless

competent Authority and Court declares that sale deed dated

29.07.1983 is void, the petitioners cannot be deprived of its

benefits. Prima facie title vests with the petitioners and she is

in possession since agreement to sell dated 24.04.1972. There

is total inaction on the part of respondent No.1, which is

overlooked by learned Minister. It is recorded that for want of

permission the transaction is void as per Section 43 of the Act.

The findings regarding title of the petitioners is without

jurisdiction.
                               9                      WP.11699-22.odt

12.   The Revenue Forums do not have jurisdiction to

determine title of the party, albeit, they can examine right, title

or interest for the purpose of mutating of rights in revenue

record. The power is summary in nature.           Unless there is

adjudication of the competent Court or the Authority on the

substantive rights of the parties, the Revenue Authorities

cannot usurp the jurisdiction for deciding title.           I find

substance in the submission of learned advocate Mr. Chetan

Patil and therefore, impugned judgment is unsustainable.


13.   It is vehemently contended by Mr. Ingle that the

decisions emanating from RCS.No.110 of 1984 pertains to

factum of possession only and issue of title was not germane.

All the Courts in hierarchy upheld decree of perpetual

injunction passed in favour of the petitioners, as the possession

was found to be lawfully accrued. Respondent No.1 could have

promptly adopted the proceedings to challenge the sale deed.

In the absence of any challenge to the sale deed, there is no

alternative left to hold that the petitioners are entitled to have

their names recorded in mutation entry No.3421.


14.   Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
                                 10                    WP.11699-22.odt

judgment of Mohd. Vs. Fatimabai, to buttress that action under

Section 84(C) of the Act is barred by time and it cannot be

undertaken beyond the reasonable time. I have gone through

the judgment which supports the petitioners.


15.     Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Shrikant

Vs. Krushna. The observations recorded in paragraph No.15

corroborates the claim of the petitioners.


16.     For the reasons stated herein above, I pass following

order :

                              ORDER

        (i)     Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause
                “A”.

        (ii)    The mutation entry No.3421, judgment and order
                dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Additional
                Commissioner and judgment and order dated
                07.04.2018 passed by the Additional Collector are
                upheld.

        (iii)   There shall be no order as to costs.




                                       (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

mkd/-