Bombay High Court
ABDUL MAJID ISMAIL DALVIversusUNION OF INDIA THRU MINISTRY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Mutation entries are purely fiscal and do not determine substantive ownership; any right must be adjudicated by a civil decree, and the SDO's dismissal was upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Majid Ismail Dalvi, filed a writ petition challenging a revenue mutation entry (No. 2246) made in 1965, alleging that a sale deed executed in 1945 in his father's favour conferred ownership rights. The Sub‑Divisional Officer dismissed the petition on the ground of a 60‑year delay. The petitioner argued that mutation entries are merely for fiscal purposes and cannot affect the validity of a sale deed, which should be determined in civil court. The High Court affirmed the settled principle that mutation entries are fiscal and that any substantive right must be adjudicated by a civil decree, which would bind revenue authorities. Consequently, the Court found no error in the SDO’s order, dismissed the writ petition, and allowed the petitioner to pursue civil remedies, without expressing any view on the merits of such remedies.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a revenue mutation entry on the substantive ownership rights of a property?
- Can a petition challenging a mutation entry be entertained after a delay of 60 years?
Subjects
- mutation entry
- land revenue
- civil remedy
- limitation period
- fiscal purpose
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 27-WP-11783-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11783 OF 2026
SHRI. ABDUL MAJID ISMAIL DALVI ...PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THRU. MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Vijay Gharat a/w Mr. Sarvesh Gharat & Ms. Nidhi Mankar,
learned counsel for the Petitioner.
R. M. Shinde, learned AGP for the State-Respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the
mutation entry no. 2246 entered in the year 1965. Learned
authority, Sub-Divisional Officer has dismissed the said appeal on the
ground of 60 years delay in challenging the mutation entry.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has sale deed qua the said land of the year 1945 in his
Page 1 of 2
21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 27-WP-11783-2026.docx
father’s favour and that the mutation entry made in the year 1965
bearing no. 2246 is accordingly challenged. Learned counsel further
submits that the Revenue Authority can only make the Mutation
Entries for fiscal purposes and cannot travel into the challenge of the
Sale Deed.
4. It is a settled law that the Mutation Entries are only for the
fiscal purposes and if the Petitioner has right qua the property, the
same can always be adjudicated by the civil proceedings. Any decree
passed by the Civil Court would be binding on the Revenue
Authorities.
5. In view of the same, this Court finds no error in the order of
SDO, hence no case is made out to interfere with. Accordingly, the
present Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner
to pursue his civil remedies before the Civil Court, as are available in
law. If such civil remedies are invoked, this Court has not expressed
anything on merits of such remedies.
6. Merits on the contentions of parties are kept open and the
Court concerned would decide the same in accordance with law.
7. With these observations, the present Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
Page 2 of 2
Digitally signed
21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.09.24
11:44:49 +0530
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.