Bombay High Court

SAHEBRAO MADHAV KANCHAN DECD. THROUGH LHR BAPU SHANKAR SAHEBRAO KANCHANversusBALA @ BALWANT KUSHABA KANCHAN DECD. THROUGH LHRS AND ORS

Decided: 5 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

An appeal is not the proper remedy for challenging orders under the Consolidation Act; the aggrieved party must file an application under Section 31A before the competent authority.

Summary

The petitioners challenged orders arising from proceedings under the Consolidation Act concerning a mutation entry. The High Court observed that such proceedings cannot be contested by way of an appeal, as the Act provides only an application mechanism under Sections 31A and 32. Consequently, the appeal filed was deemed non‑maintainable. The Court directed the respondents to file an appropriate application under Section 31A before the competent authority, which will decide the matter on its merits, independent of the impugned judgment. Issues of limitation and the requirement to approach the authority within a reasonable period were left for the competent authority to determine. The petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

Whether proceedings under the Consolidation Act challenging a mutation entry are appealable.
Whether the correct remedy for aggrieved parties is an application under Section 31A of the Act.
Whether questions of limitation and reasonable period are to be decided by the competent authority.

Legislation cited

Consolidation Act — s. 31A, 32

Subjects

mutation entry
Consolidation Act
appeal
Section 31A
limitation
writ petition
High Court
Civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                     11-WP-2578-21-FM.doc



                                                             Sayali
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2578 OF 2021

Sahebrao Madhav Kanchan Deced. Thr.
LHR Bapu Shankar Sahebrao Kanchan   … Petitioners
           V/s.
Bala @ balwant Kushaba Kanchan
Deced. Thr. LHRS and Others         … Respondents

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, with Sumit Kate for Petitioners.
Mr. Drupad S. Patil with Mr. Dheeraj Patil, for
Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Hamid D. Mulla, AGP for State-Respondent nos. 7
to 10.
                        CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                            DATED      : OCTOBER 05, 2026
P.C.:

1.      It appears from the record that the proceedings initiated by
the respondents for challenging the mutation entry and the
proceedings undertaken under the provisions of the Consolidation
Act could not have been challenged by way of an Appeal.
Consequently, the orders passed in the impugned proceedings
arise from proceedings which were themselves not maintainable in
law. The remedy available to a person aggrieved by an error or
alleged illegality in the Consolidation Scheme is to approach the
competent authorities in accordance with Sections 31A and 32 of
the Act, subject to the applicable limitation and the requirement
that such remedy is invoked within a reasonable period, as



                                  1
                                                      11-WP-2578-21-FM.doc


explained in various judgments of this Court.

2.    In my considered opinion, therefore, the appropriate remedy
available to the original applicant, instead of preferring an Appeal,
was to file an appropriate application under Section 31A of the
Act before the competent authority. The proceedings having been
pursued by way of an Appeal, which was not the remedy
contemplated under the Act, the impugned orders cannot be
sustained on that basis. Hence, the following order is passed:

                                   ORDER

      i) The contesting respondents are at liberty to file an
      appropriate application under Section 31A of the Act. If such
      an application is filed, the competent authorities under the
      Act shall consider the same independently and on its own
      merits, without being influenced by any of the observations
      or findings recorded in the impugned judgment and order.

      ii) All questions relating to limitation and the requirement of
      approaching the competent authority within a reasonable
      period are kept open. The same shall be considered and
      decided by the competent authorities under the Act in
      accordance with law and on the basis of the facts and
      circumstances of the case.

      iii) The petition is disposed of accordingly.




                                              (AMIT BORKAR, J.)



                                   2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…