Bombay High Court
BALSHIRAM VITTHAL HANDE AND ORSversusANJALI NARESH CHOUHAN AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Revenue mutation entries are subordinate to pending civil partition proceedings, and the Minister’s order setting aside the mutation entry stands, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Summary
After the death of their father, the petitioners (brothers) obtained a partition decree in 2015 and a mutation entry in 2016 without joining their sisters (respondents) as parties. The sisters later filed a civil suit in 2017 seeking a fresh partition and declaration that the earlier decree did not bind them, and they also challenged the mutation entry. The revenue authorities initially set aside the mutation entry, but the petitioners obtained a revision order from the Additional Commissioner in 2021, which was later reviewed and the mutation entry was again set aside on the ground that the decree was not registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and stamp duty was unpaid. The petitioners approached the High Court in a writ petition challenging the Minister’s order that dismissed their revision and affirmed the setting aside of the mutation entry. The Court held that revenue entries remain subject to the pending civil suit and that the Minister’s order could not be interfered with. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners can be set aside while a civil partition suit filed by the sisters is pending.
- Whether the Minister, exercising revision powers, can set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and its implications for the parties.
- Whether revenue entries are subordinate to the outcome of civil proceedings concerning the same property.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- partition suit
- mutation entry
- civil decree
- revenue law
- revision
- review
- ministerial power
- writ petition
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 17759 OF 2024
SHRI. BALSHIRAM VITTHAL HANDE
AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS
Versus
ANJALI NARESH CHOUHAN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye a/w Mr. Akshay Pansare, Mr. Nipun
Sawane, Ms. Vrushali Shivgun, Mr. Atharva S. Pawar & Mr.
Ayush Hasabnis, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ramesh Dubepatil a/w Mr. Ashish Gabhale i/b Mr.
Anantrao Kate, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, learned AGP for the State-Respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
2. It appears from the record that after the demise of father of
the Petitioners, the Petitioners who are brothers, filed a suit for
partition without making the Respondents-sisters as a party to the
Page 1 of 5
21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx
partition suit. The partition decree was obtained on 12th June, 2015
and in pursuance thereto a mutation entry no. 4697 was carried out
on 9th March, 2016. Subsequently, the sisters, i.e. the Respondents
herein filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 127 of 2017 for partition and
also for declaration that the earlier decree is not binding on them, as
they were not parties to the earlier suit. The said suit is pending
consideration.
3. In the year 2018 in the interregnum the Respondents-sisters
also challenged the mutation entry made in favour of the Petitioners
bearing no. 4697. The said appeal was allowed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (“SDO”) on 22nd June, 2018. Thereafter the Petitioners
preferred a Revision Application before the Additional Collector,
which was also dismissed on 20 th August, 2019. Thereafter the
Petitioners filed another Revision Application before the Additional
Commissioner.
4. The Additional Commissioner by order dated 24th March,
2021 allowed the Revision Application by holding that until the
decree passed in favour of the Petitioners in partition suit is set aside,
it was not proper for the Revenue Authority to set aside the mutation
entry made in favour of the Petitioners. Thereafter the Review
Application is filed by Respondent No. 1 before the same authority,
which was allowed on the ground that earlier consent decree was not
registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the stamp
Page 2 of 5
21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx
duty was also not paid thereon and accordingly, he allowed the
review application and set aside the mutation entry no. 4697.
5. The Petitioners carried the order of Revisional Authority i.e.
the Additional Commissioner dated 3rd July, 2023 passed in the
Review Application before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble
Minister dismissed the Revision Application and also further
observed that the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 24 th
March, 2021 is set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in the present Writ
Petition challenges the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister and has
made two-fold submissions.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in absence
of a disclosure of the civil suit filed in the year 2017, the mutation
entry made in favour of the Petitioners in the year 2016 ought not to
have been set aside on an application by Respondent No. 1,
particularly when Respondent No. 1 failed to bring it to the notice of
the authority that the civil suit for partition is still pending.
8. Learned counsel also submits that the Hon’ble Minister
while exercising the power of revision, at the highest could have
dismissed the Revision Application, but could have not further
observed that the order dated 24 th March, 2021 passed by the
Page 3 of 5
21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx
Additional Commissioner is set aside, that puts him in a more
adverse situation than he was before the Additional Commissioner.
9. Both the submissions however of the learned counsel for
Petitioners, cannot be accepted.
10. It is undisputed fact that Respondent No. 1 was not made a
party to the civil suit for partition filed by the Petitioners and a
partition decree in the said suit is accordingly not binding upon
them. The sisters names in addition are recorded in the mutation
entry. Such a entry made, is in the natural course appropriate, as
their names were left out and Respondent No. 1 is also the legal heir
of deceased father of the Petitioners.
11. As regards the second submission of the Petitioners that the
Hon’ble Minister ought not to have further observed that the
Additional Commissioner order dated 24th March, 2021 is set aside, it
is hardly of any consequence, since the Additional Commissioner has
himself reviewed the order dated 24 th March, 2021 and set aside the
mutation entry. The order of Additional Commissioner dated 24 th
March, 2021 stood reviewed by him and that the original order dated
24th March, 2021 stood merged with the subsequent order passed in
the Review Application dated 3rd July, 2023.
Page 4 of 5
21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx
12. As such, both the submissions of learned counsel for the
Petitioners, cannot be accepted. It is a settled law that the revenue
entries would be subject to the civil proceedings.
13. Considering this aspect, the revenue entries made now
presently standing would ultimately be subject to the civil suit filed
by Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioners.
14. The successful party would be at liberty to apply for
rectification of the mutation entry, if necessary, based on the decree
passed by the Civil Court.
15. With these observations, no case is made out to interfere
with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition
stands dismissed.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.09.23
14:56:10 +0530
Page 5 of 5
21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.