Bombay High Court

ANANT JANARDAN GHARAT AND ORSversusPRASAD POSU GHARAT AND ORS

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MILIND N JADHAV

Holding

The DILR orders dated 19‑04‑2004 and 26‑07‑2024 are quashed and set aside as they conflict with the final civil judgment.

Summary

The petitioners, Anant Janardan Gharat and others, filed a writ petition challenging two orders of the Deputy Director of Land Records (DILR) that corrected the revenue records and mutation entry of a disputed property, condoning a delay of 58 years. The petitioners relied on a final judgment of the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1997 (dated 29‑04‑2004), upheld by the District Court in Appeal No. 47 of 2005, which declared the suit property to be self‑acquired by them. The High Court examined whether the DILR could disregard that settled judgment while ordering the correction of the land records. It held that the DILR’s orders were directly contrary to the final civil judgment and therefore could not be sustained. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the DILR orders dated 19‑04‑2004 and 26‑07‑2024 and directed the reversal of the revenue entries within a week. The writ petition was allowed and disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the DILR’s orders correcting the revenue record and condoning a 58‑year delay are valid in view of a final civil court judgment declaring the property self‑acquired by the petitioners.
Whether the mutation entry can be altered despite the settled decree of the civil suit.

Subjects

mutation entry
revenue record
land records
civil suit finality
writ petition
quashing order
delay condonation
self‑acquired property

Judgment

18.WP.1494.2026.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1494 OF 2026

Anant Janardan Gharat and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Prasad Posu Gharat and Ors. .. Respondents

....................
 Mr. Rahul Thakur a/w. Ms. Vidhi Nayar and Mr. Abhishek Bhojane,
Advocates for Petitioners.
 Ms. Apurva P. Thipasay, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent – State.
......…...........

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

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Thakur, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Ms.

Thipasay, learned ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent – State.

2. On 03.02.2026, after hearing both the learned Advocates,

the following order was passed:-

“1. Heard Mr. Thakur, learned Advocate for Petitioners and
Ms. Thipasay, learned ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent – State.
2. The directions contained in the operative clauses 2 and 3
of the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the DILR
alongwith the Appeal and directing correction of the Revenue
Records is directly in the teeth of the settled judgment of the
Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 1997 dated 29.04.2004
which is upheld by the District Court in Appeal No.47 of 2005
and which has attained finality. After failing in their endeavour,
the private Respondents embarked upon an ingenious method
by challenging the Mutation Entry and the DILR has by his
order dated 19.04.2023 shockingly condoned the delay of 58
years without adherence to the above fact that private
Respondents had comprehensively lost in the Civil Suit which
was instituted by them for partition orders which are alluded to
herein above. Once this is the position emanating from the

1 of 3
18.WP.1494.2026.doc

record, the learned AGP is directed to take immediate
instructions from the concerned Officer who has passed the
impugned orders and file reply.
3. It is prima facie seen that the Deputy Director of Land
Records in further Appeal has upheld the order condoning the
delay as well as the order on merit passed by the DILR without
adhering to the aforesaid. Once there is a categorical finding in
the decree of the Civil Court that the Suit property is self-
acquired property of the Petitioners by personal means and the
said judgment having attained finality, the orders passed by the
State functionaries which are assailed in the present case
cannot be sustained.
4. Ms. Thipasay, learned ‘B’ Panel Counsel appears on behalf
of the State. She is directed take immediate instructions and
apprise the Court accordingly failing which this Court will have
to step in and pass appropriate orders to determine the present
Writ Petition.
5. Impugned order is stayed. In view of the above, issue
notice to private Respondents. Humdast permitted.
6. In addition to Court notice, Petitioners are permitted to
serve copy of Writ Petition and this order on the private
Respondents and inform them about the next date of hearing
by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate
Affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on or before the
next date.
7. After receiving notice, private Respondents are directed to
remain present in Court on the next adjourned date through
their representative or through Advocate to answer the present
Writ Petition.
8. Private Respondents are directed to take cognizance of
this order and file Affidavit-in-Reply on or before the next date,
if so desired. Copy of the same shall be served on the other side
in advance.
9. Stand over to 17th February 2026. To be placed under the
caption ‘First on Board’.”

3. In view of the compliance of the aforesaid order, today Ms.

Thipasay, learned Advocate informs the Court that the Deputy Director

of Lands Record (DILR) was not informed about decree of the Civil

Court and therefore the impugned order came to be passed in view

thereof. The decree of the Civil Court decreeing that the Suit property

2 of 3
18.WP.1494.2026.doc

is self acquired property of the Petitioners by their personal means

having attained finality and the same having become absolute in

Appeal proceedings ought to have been considered by the DDLR before

effecting the Mutation Entry.

4. The impugned order is therefore prima facie not sustainable.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order 19.04.2004 condoning

the delay of 58 years and the impugned dated 26.07.2024 passed by

the DILR in Appeal directing the correction of the Revenue Record

deserve to be quashed and set aside in view of the settled judgment of

the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 1997 dated 29.04.2004

which has been upheld by the learned District Court in Civil Appeal

No.47 of 2005 and it having attained finality. Accordingly the order

dated 19.04.2004 and 26.07.2024 are quashed and set aside.

5. Revenue Entries are directed to be reversed as they stood

prior to passing of the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 which shall

be set aside within a period of one week from today on the basis of a

server copy of this order.

6. In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.02.17
18:51:29 +0530

3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…