Bombay High Court
AATISH VILAS KHEDEKAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU MINISTER AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition for rectification of the mutation entry is dismissed, leaving the matter to be decided by the pending civil suit.
Summary
The petitioners sought rectification of a mutation entry that had been removed in 1985, after the land was notified as cattle grazing land. They are in possession of the land and claim they were unaware of the removal, but the revenue authority refused their application on the ground that it was filed beyond the 30‑year limitation period. The petitioners also have a civil suit pending on the same subject matter. The court noted that adjudication by a civil court binds revenue authorities, so if the petitioners obtain a favorable civil judgment they may obtain rectification. However, the writ petition was dismissed, with the court stating that no findings in this proceeding bind the civil court and that the civil court may proceed according to law. All contentions of both parties were left open.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the 30‑year limitation period on a petition for rectification of a mutation entry?
- Does a civil court's adjudication of rights bind revenue authorities for mutation entry correction?
- Can the petitioners obtain relief through the writ petition or must they rely on the pending civil suit?
Subjects
- mutation entry
- land revenue
- writ petition
- rectification
- limitation period
- civil suit
- adjudication of rights
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 11-WP-11809-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11809 OF 2026
AATISH VILAS KHEDEKAR AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS REVENUE MINISTER
AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w Ms. Sonali Jadhav & Mr. Aryan
Mehta, learned counsels for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, ‘B’ Panel Advocate for the State-
Respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Perused the records.
3. From the record it appears that the mutation entry in favour
of the Petitioners’ grand-parents was removed in the year 1985 qua
the subject land and the land is notified as ‘Gurcharan (Cattle
Grazing Land)’.
Page 1 of 2
7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 11-WP-11809-2026.docx
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
Petitioners are in possession of the land and they were not aware as
to how the entry has been effected. The same is not effected in any
judicial order or by conveyance or any other proceeds. However, the
authority below refused to entertain the application of the Petitioners
for rectification of the mutation entry as the same is belated and
beyond 30 years.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the
civil suit is filed qua the same subject matter.
6. It is a settled law that the adjudication of rights by the Civil
Court would ultimately bind on Revenue Authorities. In the event
the Petitioners succeed in civil suit or obtain any order, the
Petitioners will be entitled to rectification of the mutation entry qua
the subject land.
7. With these observations, the present Writ Petition stands
dismissed.
8. No findings recorded in this proceeding would bind the
Civil Court and the Civil Court is entitled to proceed in accordance
with law.
9. All contentions of both the parties are left open.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
Page 2 of 2
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.09.11
19:31:50 +0530
Checking your session…