Bombay High Court

MANISHA LALCHAND DADLANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Additional Commissioner’s order is restored and the Minister’s order is quashed.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the order dated 28.02.2024 of the Hon'ble Minister, which set aside the Additional Commissioner’s decision on mutation entries of land jointly purchased in 2005. Subsequent sale deeds led to additional mutation entries that the petitioner contested, arguing that the co‑owners (respondent Nos.8‑17) lacked authority to sell portions without a partition. The Additional Commissioner partially allowed revision, maintaining the original mutation entry and directing the parties to resolve their rights in the pending civil suit. The Minister reversed this order, prompting the writ petition. The High Court held that the Minister had no jurisdiction to interfere with the revenue officer’s order, restored the Additional Commissioner’s decision, quashed the Minister’s order, and directed that the fate of the mutation entries be decided by the civil court, ordering speedy disposal of the suit.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents, as co‑owners without a partition, were competent to execute sale deeds of portions of the jointly owned land.
Whether the Minister had the authority to set aside the Additional Commissioner’s order under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Whether mutation entries confer title or are subject to determination by a civil court.
Whether the High Court can intervene in revenue matters pending adjudication in a civil suit.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 247, 257

Subjects

mutation entries
joint ownership
partition
land revenue
civil suit
writ petition
administrative interference
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43039

1
39 CA 118 OF 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

39 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2026
IN WP/14147/2024

VIJAY MAGANLAL AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
MANISHA LALCHAND DADLANI AND OTHERS
...
Mr. M. G. Kochar h/f. Mr. B. R. Warma, Advocate for
Applicants
Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 – State
Mr. G. R. Ingole, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/14147/2024
Mr. R. R. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.8 to 17 in WP

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14147 OF 2024

MANISHA LALCHAND DADLANI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
AND OTHERS
…

CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 21st September 2026

P.C. :-

. Feeling aggrieved by the decision and order dated

28.02.2024 passed by the the then Hon’ble Minister, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Business Development Department, Mumbai

in File No. R.T.S. No. Appeal No. 31-A-23/ Pra. Kra.-55/J-6-A,

the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
2
39 CA 118 OF 2026

2. Considering the short controversy in the matter, the

Writ Petition is heard for final disposal at the instance of the

parties.

3. The sum and substance of the case is that the subject

matter land was purchased jointly by the petitioner and

respondent Nos.8 to 17 from its erstwhile owner vide a

registered sale deed dated 14.09.2005. On the basis of the said

sale deed, mutation entry No.39237 came to be recorded. It

appears that subsequently development plan was prepared by

the parties even accommodating an adjacent land holders, i.e.

applicants in Intervention Application No.118 of 2026.

Further, as per the contention of the petitioner, respondent

Nos.8 to 17 sold out certain portion of that land to other

parties. This triggered a dispute between the parties.

4. On the basis of the subsequent sale deeds, some

mutation entries particularly mutation entries Nos.39448,

39609, 40088, 40117 and 40360, came to be recorded. The

petitioner challenged those entries before the appropriate

authorities. The appeal/grievances were turned down by the

appellate authority under Section 247 of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for brevity, “MLRC Code”). The
3
39 CA 118 OF 2026

petitioner challenged that order under Section 257 of the

MLRC Code before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik

Division. After hearing the parties, the said revision came to be

partly allowed with the following directions :

"१. अर्जदार यांचे पुनरीक्षण अंशतः मंजूर करण्यात येत आहे.
२. अपर जिल्हाधिकारी, नंदरु बार यांचेकडील आरटीएस अपील
क्र. ०१/२०१९ मधील दि. ०५/११/२०२० रोजीचा आदेश रद्द
करण्यात येत आहे.
३. तहसिलदार, नंदरु बार यांनी वाद मिळकतीवरील विवादित
फेरफार नोंद क्र. ३९२३७ बाबत पूर्वीची परिस्थिती कायम ठे वून,
नोंदणीकृत खरेदीखतानुसार झालेल्या हस्तांतरणाची नोंद वाद
मिळकतीच्या इतर अधिकारात घेण्याची कार्यवाही करावी.
४. अर्जदार व सामनेवाले यांनी विवादित खरेदीखताच्या
वैधतेबाबत अथवा अवैधतेबाबत सक्षम दिवाणी न्यायालयामार्फ त
दाद मागून घेणे.
५. खर्चाबाबत आदेश नाहीत.
६. सदर निर्णय सर्व संबंधितांना स्वतंत्ररीत्या कळविण्यात यावा.
७. सदर निर्णय www.eqjcourts.gov.in या संकेतस्थळावर
प्रसिद्ध करण्यात आलेला आहे."

5. This order was taken up in challenge by respondent

Nos.8 to 17 before the Hon’ble Minister. After hearing the

parties, the Hon’ble Minister allowed the revision/appeal and

the order passed by the Additional Commissioner came to be

turned down. As against that the petitioner is before this

Court.

6. Heard all the learned Advocates for their respective

parties. They stand by their respective pleadings and the stand

which is raised by them before the authorities below.
4
39 CA 118 OF 2026

7. Mr. G. R. Ingole, learned Advocate for the petitioner

submits that since there is no partition between the parties,

respondent Nos.8 to 17 were not competent to execute sale

deeds of any portion of their joint property. He would submit

that the very basis of the controversy is the alleged

memorandum of partition which he denies to have executed.

He submits that in view of this, the petitioner has already filed

Regular Civil Suit No.273 of 2023 before the competent Court

and the fate of the mutation entries would be subject to the

decision in the civil suit.

8. Mr. R. R. Kazi, learned Advocate for the respondent

Nos.8 to 17 would submit that in the civil suit, the application

filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction is

already rejected. He submits that even in the suit is defective

for the reason that the petitioner has not challenged the

memorandum of partition in the suit. However, ultimately he

stands by the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister and the

reasons recorded therein.

9. Mr. M. G. Kochar, h/f. Mr. B. R. Warma, learned

Advocate for the applicants in Intervention Application

submits that they are unnecessarily suffering the disturbance
5
39 CA 118 OF 2026

caused by the plaintiff as also by the respondents on their own

land which is not the subject matter of the present

controversy. He submits that they are parties to the civil

proceedings being the adjacent land holders, and that they

same are being unnecessarily affected by the dispute between

the parties. The basis of the controversy is the alleged

partition/division of the subject matter property purchased

jointly by the petitioner and respondent Nos.8 to 17.

10. On the basis of the registered sale deed, mutation entry

No.39237 came to be recorded, whereas the subsequent

mutation entries are consequent to the execution of the

alleged memorandum of partition and, apparently, the suit to

crystallize the civil rights of the parties is pending before the

competent Civil Court. It is trite law that mutation entries do

not confer title and such proceedings are always subject to the

decision of the Civil Court. Now, the parties are already before

the Civil Court. The respective parties may convince the Civil

Court to agitate their civil rights.

11. At this juncture, this Court refrains from commenting on

the merits of the controversy raised by the plaintiff, since it is

not the subject matter before this Court. Looking to the
6
39 CA 118 OF 2026

recitals of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner,

I find that the Additional Commissioner has very wisely passed

that order maintaining the original mutation entry on one

hand in the ownership column as also maintaining the

subsequent mutation entries in the other column. In my

considered view, there was no reason for the Hon’ble Minister

to interfere with the order passed by the Additional

Commissioner.

12. Hence, I pass following order :

ORDER

I. The Writ Petition is allowed.
II. The decision and order dated 28.02.2024
passed by the the then Hon’ble Minister, Animal
Husbandry, Dairy Business Development
Department, Mumbai in File No. R.T.S. No.
Appeal No. 31-A-23/ Pra. Kra.-55/J-6-A is
quashed and set aside.
III. The order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the
learned Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision i.e.
RTS/Punarnirikshan/301/2021 stands restored.
IV. Parties including intervenors are at liberty
to agitate their civil rights in the Civil Court in
the present pending civil suit.
7
39 CA 118 OF 2026

V. The fate of the mutation entries shall be
subject to the decision in the civil suit.
VI. The Trial Court is requested to conclude
the suit proceedings as early as possible and
preferably within a period of ten (10) months
from today.
VII. Parties undertake to assist the Court for
early disposal.
VIII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…