Bombay High Court

SHILPAKALA GRUHANIRMAN SANSTHA THR PUNDALIK EKNATH TALELEversusJANARDHAN DEORAO KAMBLE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The Court held that there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Commissioner’s order and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner sought a stay of a mutation entry in land records, arguing that the entry should remain pending the outcome of a civil suit. The civil suit (R.C.S. No.409 of 2001) had already concluded with a finding that the petitioner could not prove title or possession, and the suit’s decree was final. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, rejected the petitioner’s stay application, prompting the writ petition. The High Court examined whether the Commissioner’s order involved any jurisdictional error or perversity that could be corrected by a writ. Finding none, the Court directed the Commissioner to decide the pending revision within six weeks and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Additional Divisional Commissioner erred in rejecting the petitioner’s stay application concerning the mutation entry.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to intervene in the Commissioner’s order.

Subjects

mutation entry
stay order
revision
civil suit
jurisdiction
writ petition
revenue law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:10797


                                                   1                      wp 2500.26.odt

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  110 WRIT PETITION NO. 2500 OF 2026

                      Shilpakala Gruhanirman Sanstha Thr Pundalik Eknath Talele
                                                 VERSUS
                                 Janardhan Deorao Kamble And Others
                                                     ...
                     Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A.A. Fulfagar
                     AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.N. Kendre
                     Advocate for Respondent-1 : Mr. A.P. Bhandari h/f V. P. Kale
                                                     ...

                                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                         Dated     : March 09, 2026

                     PER COURT :-

                     1.    Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated

                     11.02.2026     passed   by    learned   Additional    Divisional

                     Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in matter Revision

                     no.2025/ROR/Rev/CR-413, whereby stay application preferred

                     by the petitioner has been rejected.


                     2.    Undisputedly, revision application in respect of the

                     mutation entry is pending before Additional Commissioner,

                     Aurangabad.      Previously, selfsame mutation entry was

                     subjected to challenge before the Revenue authorities and

                     Additional Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar disposed off

                     appeal vide order dated 7.8.2003 observing that the mutation

                     entry no.868 and 885 shall be subject to final decision of
                              2                      wp 2500.26.odt

pending civil suit between the parties. Admittedly, petitioner/

plaintiff had instituted R.C.S. No.409 of 2001 seeking relief of

perpetual injunction against the respondent. In that suit first

issue was framed as to ‘whether plaintiff proved his title and

possession over the suit property.’     This issue is decided in

negative holding that plaintiff could not prove his ownership

and title. The order passed in the suit has attained finality. In

this backdrop, learned Additional Divisional Commissioner

refused to continue interim order of stay or protect the

mutation entry standing in the name fo petitioner.


3.      Considering the reasons supplied in impugned order, this

Court do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity that can

be looked into in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Needless to

state here that learned Additional Divisional Commissioner is

expected to decide the pending revision expeditiously and in

any case within a period of six weeks from today. All points

are kept open. In that view of the matter, writ petition stands

disposed of.


                                  ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
                                  …
AAA/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…