Bombay High Court
ASHOK KADUBHAU SONWANE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
A mutation entry is only for fiscal purposes and does not confer any right, title or interest; the writ petition is disposed and the pending civil suit shall determine the title.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ directing the issuance of a mutation entry for a property, arguing it would establish their right. The Court held that a mutation entry is merely a fiscal record and does not confer any right, title, or interest in the land; such substantive rights must be determined by a competent civil court. Since a regular civil suit (No. 1075 of 2011) concerning the same property is pending and at the evidence stage, the Court declined to rule on the petition’s merits. The writ petition was therefore disposed, with a clarification that the civil court must decide the suit on its own merits, free from any influence of the revisional authority. The Court also directed the trial court to dispose of the pending civil suit within one year, and the interim order remains effective until that disposal.
Issues considered
- Does a mutation entry confer any right, title, or interest in the property?
- Can the High Court dispose of a writ petition concerning a mutation entry when a substantive civil suit on the same property is pending?
- Should the court direct expeditious disposal of the pending civil suit?
Subjects
- mutation entry
- land revenue
- civil suit
- title determination
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:14503
1 of 2 63-WP.15292.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
63 WRIT PETITION NO. 15292 OF 2019
ASHOK KADUBHAU SONWANE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. V. K. Bhosale h/f. Mr. S. R. Sapkal, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Sanjay S. Dudhane h/f. Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for
Respondent No.7.
Mr. Pradeep K. Palve, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 27th MARCH 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. After hearing the parties for some time, it appears that the
dispute pertains to a mutation entry. It is well settled that a mutation
entry is only for fiscal purposes and does not confer any right, title, or
interest in the property. The question of title is to be adjudicated by the
competent Civil Court.
3. Both the learned Advocates submit that, in respect of the
same property, Regular Civil Suit No.1075 of 2011 is pending between
the parties and is presently at the stage of evidence. Therefore, without
going into the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of
the writ petition by observing that the mutation entry shall be subject
to the outcome of the said civil proceeding, i.e., R.C.S. No.1075 of
Tauseef
2 of 2 63-WP.15292.2019.odt
2011.
4. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of.
5. It is clarified that the Civil Court shall decide the suit on its
own merits, without being influenced by any observations made by the
revisional authority.
6. Considering that the suit is of the year 2011, both the
learned Advocates submit that the purpose would be served if a
direction is issued for its expeditious disposal. Accordingly, the Trial
Court is directed to decide Regular Civil Suit No.1075 of 2011 within a
period of one year from today.
7. The interim order granted by this Court shall continue till the
disposal of the suit by the Trial Court.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…