MANHAR RATHILAL BAGADIYA SINCE DEC THR HEIRSversusCHETAN SINGH CHIMAN SINGH CHAUHAN AND ORS

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO.16260 OF 2024

                       Manhar Rathilal Bagadiya (deceased)            ....   Petitioners
                       thru’ Legal Heirs

                                    Vs.
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL
DUSANE
                       Chetan Singh Chiman Singh Chauhan              ....   Respondents
 Digitally signed by
 BHALCHANDRA
 GOPAL DUSANE
                       & Ors.
 Date: 2026.09.29
 12:21:29 +0530

                       Mr. Mandar Soman i/b Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, Advocate for Petitioners.
                       Mr. Shrinivas Patwardhan a/w Mr. Manish Kelkar, Advocate for Respondent
                       no.1.
                       Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent nos. 2, 4 to 8 – State.


                                                         CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                                         DATE   : 23rd September 2026

                       P.C. :


                       1.       Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

                       2.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that, by the Order dated

                       25th August 2009, the Hon’ble Minister dismissed the Revision Application

                       filed by the Petitioners, challenging Mutation Entry No. 1698.

                       3.       Subsequently, the Petitioner herein instituted Civil Suit No.31 of 2011

                       seeking an injunction against the Respondents in respect of the very same

                       property for which Mutation Entry No. 1698 was recorded. The said Civil

                       Suit came to be dismissed by an Order dated 20th May 2024.
                                                              1/5
                       5 WP 16260.24.doc                                                      Dusane
4.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that an Appeal

against the decree passed by the Civil Court on 20 th May 2024 has been filed

and is pending consideration before the Appellate Court.

5.       It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the tenancy claim of

the Petitioner has been rejected by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In

view of the two separate orders, one passed by the Maharashtra Revenue

Tribunal and the other by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 31 of 2011, the

Respondent no.1 filed an application for review, before the Hon’ble

Minister, seeking review of the order dated 25 th August 2009 passed in the

Revision Petition, on the ground that the said order had expressly left open

the possibility of seeking such a review, in the event of adjudication of right

of the Respondent by a Civil Court.

6.       An application for condonation of the delay in filing the Review

Application in the Revision Petition was also filed, explaining the delay.

7.       In view of the orders passed by the Civil Court as well as by the

learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the learned Minister, by the

impugned order dated 10th September 2024 condoned the delay of 15 years

in filing Review Petition and also by the impugned order dated 14 th October

2024 allowed the Review Petition and corresponding change to the mutation

entry.

                                        2/5
5 WP 16260.24.doc                                                       Dusane
8.     Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that it was not open to the

concerned Minister to review the earlier order dated 25 th August 2009 after a

period of 15 years.

9.     The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in view of the

changed circumstances, as noticed above, at the highest, the Respondents

may approach the concerned Revenue authority, i.e., the Tahsildar, for

rectification/change of the mutation entries, particularly in view of the order

passed by the Civil Court as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

10.    In response thereto, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that,

in view of the changed circumstances, the Respondent is entitled to approach

the Hon’ble Minister for review of the earlier order. However, he further

submits that, in view of the objections raised by the Petitioner, he has no

objection if the application for review/fresh application for mutation is

considered by the Revenue authority, i.e., the Tahsildar. The learned Counsel

for the Respondents submits that he would make fresh application to the

concerned Tahsildar for rectification of mutation entry. The concerned

Tahsildar may, thereafter, pass appropriate orders after duly considering the

order passed by the Civil Court in the Civil Suit, as well as the order passed

by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.



                                      3/5
5 WP 16260.24.doc                                                     Dusane
11.    In view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned order passed by

the Hon’ble Minister in Review Application No. RTS-3424/3571/Pra.Kra

315/J-5 dated 14th October 2024 is hereby set aside.

12.    However, liberty is reserved to the Respondent to approach the

Tahsildar for rectification and/or alteration of the mutation entry, in view of

the decisions rendered by the Civil Court and the Maharashtra Revenue

Tribunal.

13.    All the contentions of the parties are left open.

14.    It is settled law that the orders passed by the Civil Court would

ultimately be binding upon the Revenue Authorities, and the Revenue

Authorities would act in accordance with law while considering the

application of the Respondents.

15.    Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the order passed

by the Revenue Tribunal has been stayed by the same Tribunal in the Review

Application. However, this submission is disputed by learned Counsel for

the Respondents. The orders passed in the said proceedings are also placed

on record.

16.    Needless to state, the orders passed in the earlier revenue proceedings

would not bind the revenue authorities in view of the changed

circumstances, i.e. subsequent orders passed by the Civil Court and the

                                       4/5
5 WP 16260.24.doc                                                     Dusane
Revenue Tribunal.

17.    If the application is filed within four weeks, the concerned authority

shall decide the same within a period of four months. The Petitioners shall

appear voluntarily, before the Tahsildar and no fresh notice shall be required.

18.    The Respondents may, in advance, intimate the Petitioners of the date

of listing of the application before the concerned authority, so as to avoid

any further delay.

19.    The Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions.



                                                 [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]




                                      5/5
5 WP 16260.24.doc                                                     Dusane