Bombay High Court
JAGDISH BALKRISHNA SHELAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ARUN R PEDNEKER
Holding
The order condoning the 45‑year delay in challenging the mutation entry is quashed and set aside.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a Sub‑Divisional Officer's order that condoned a 45‑year delay in contesting Mutation Entry No. 1387. They argued that the original applicant had known of the entry since 1993 and only sought rectification in 2022, making the condonation unjustified. The respondents contended that the mutation entry, made for fiscal purposes, did not affect the petitioner's substantive property rights and that any dispute should be resolved in a civil court. The Court held that the mutation entry could not be used to alter ownership rights and that the extreme delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the order condoning the delay was quashed, and the parties were directed to pursue appropriate civil remedies; the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 45 years in challenging a mutation entry can be condoned.
- Whether a mutation entry affects substantive property rights of the parties.
- What is the appropriate forum for adjudicating disputes arising from mutation entries?
Subjects
- mutation entry
- delay condonation
- property rights
- civil remedy
- partition deed
- revenue law
- writ petition
- quash order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.16877 OF 2024
Jagdish Balkrishna Shelar & Anr. .... Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
through Revenue Department & Ors.
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w Mr. Mayank Tripathi for Petitioner.
Smt. A.A. Nadkarni, AGP for State.
Ms. Kinjal Gogri i/b Mr. Piyush Shah for Respondent nos. 5 to 8.
Mr. Afsar Ansari i/b Mr. Vishal Patil for Respondents nos. 11 and 12.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 6th August 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the order
dated 20th January 2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wada, Wada
Division, condoning the delay of 45 years in challenging Mutation Entry No.
1387.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the delay has been
condoned bereft of any reasons, merely observing that the dispute is between
the brothers. However, learned counsel points out that the Respondent-
1/3
53 WP 16877.2024.doc Dusane
original Applicant before the Sub-Divisional Officer was fully aware of the
mutation entry. This is evident from his own communication dated 17 th
November 2023 addressed to the Hon’ble Minister, wherein he has stated
that he was aware of the mutation entry having been made sometime in the
year 1993 and had called upon the Tahsildar to rectify the same. Since the
same was not done, an application was made at this stage, i.e. in the year
2022.
4. Learned counsel submits that, in view of the admitted facts of the
case, such a gross delay ought not to have been condoned.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that there has
been no partition of the suit property and that, after obtaining certain orders
from this Court, the Petitioner has also disposed of his properties in favour
of third parties. Learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to a partition
effected between the family members, the suit property in question was
received by him under the Partition Deed. However, without any transfer of
the said property by Respondent No. 3 in favour of the Petitioner, the same
came to be mutated in the name of the Petitioner, and there was no transfer
from Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner.
6. He submits that his substantial property rights in the suit property are
affected and, therefore, he has applied for rectification of Mutation Entry
2/3
53 WP 16877.2024.doc Dusane
No. 1387.
7. Considering that the mutation entry has remained in existence for a
period of 45 years and that Respondent No. 3 was aware of the same at least
for about 30 years, this Court is of the view that the delay ought not to have
been condoned. However, his rights in the property cannot be affected by
virtue of the mutation entry, as mutation entries are made only for fiscal
purposes.
8. Respondent No. 3 is at liberty to seek such appropriate remedy before
the Civil Court. Any mutation entry made in respect of the properties would
ultimately be subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings that may be
instituted between the parties. The rights in respect of the property can only
be decided by the Civil Court.
9. In view of the above, the order condoning the delay is quashed and set
aside. The parties are at liberty to seek appropriate civil remedies before the
appropriate Civil Court.
10. All mutation entries made shall be subject to any such civil
proceedings, if initiated by the parties. All contentions of both sides are left
open, if any such civil proceedings are filed.
BHALCHANDRA
11. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
GOPAL DUSANE
Digitally signed by
BHALCHANDRA
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
GOPAL DUSANE
Date: 2026.08.11
17:51:03 +0530
3/3
53 WP 16877.2024.doc Dusane
Checking your session…