Bombay High Court
SURENDRAMANI DEVATADIN TRIPATHI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. SEC. OF FOREST AND REVENUE DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MILIND N JADHAV
Holding
The court held that the civil‑court judgment is final and binding, the revenue authorities erred in reviving the mutation entry, and therefore the later mutation entries are quashed and the original entry restored.
Summary
The petitioners, re‑grantees of Class‑II land under the Abolition of Patil Inam Watan Act, challenged a series of revenue orders that revived a 1973 mutation entry (No. 824) and later created a new mutation entry (No. 2028) in favour of private respondent Gajanan Govind Alimkar, who had forged a 1971 sale deed. The civil suit (No. 649 of 2007) filed by Alimkar was dismissed on 28 March 2013, with the court finding the sale deed void for lack of permission and that Alimkar never possessed the land. Despite this, the Sub‑Divisional Officer, relying on government resolutions, allowed Alimkar’s heirs to pay 50 % of market value after a 41‑year delay and regularised the title, an order affirmed in subsequent revision proceedings. The High Court held that revenue authorities cannot override a final civil‑court judgment, lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay, and erred in reviving the mutation entry. Consequently, all later mutation entries were quashed, the original entry 595 of 1963 was restored, and the petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- The revenue authorities have jurisdiction to revive a mutation entry and regularise a sale deed that has been declared void by a civil court.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer could entertain a petition to pay 50 % market value after a 41‑year delay without condonation.
- The binding effect of the civil‑court judgment on subsequent quasi‑judicial revenue proceedings.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to restoration of the original mutation entry.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land revenue
- mutation entry
- title regularisation
- civil court finality
- quasi‑judicial authority
- delay condonation
- Abolition of Patil Inam Watan Act
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
Judgment
WP.5546.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5546 OF 2025
Surendramani Devatadin Tripathi and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. G.N. Salunke i/b. Ashutosh Dube, Advocates for Petitioners.
Ms. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : APRIL 28, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.
Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. Writ Petition assails judgment dated 14.10.2024 passed by
State in Revision proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, 1966 (for short "MLRC, 1966")
3. Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate for Petitioners would submit
that Petitioner Nos. 2 - 5 (Patil family) are re-grantees of subject lands
which are Class - II lands on new and restricted tenures under
Abolition of Patil Inam Watan Act. He would submit that Mutation
Entry No.595 dated 28.04.1963 was effected in name of predecessors
of Petitioner Nos. 2 - 5. He would submit that private Respondent No.3
Gajanan Govind Alimkar forged signature of the landholders and
without obtaining permission under Watan Act registered a Sale Deed
1 of 9
WP.5546.2025.doc
on 03.05.1971 and certified Mutation Entry No.824 on 08.04.1973 in
respect of the subject land. He would submit that this Mutation Entry
was set aside and successors - in - title and names of legal heirs of
Petitioner Nos. 2 - 5 were thereafter mutated as holders in regard to
subject land which was never challenged by private Respondent No.3
Gajanan Govind Alimkar for more than 40 years. In effect, he would
submit that by virtue of subsequent Mutation Entries, Mutation Entry
No.824 was obliterated.
4. He would submit that in 2007 being aggrieved, private
Respondent No.3 Gajanan Govind Alimkar filed Regular Civil Suit
No.649 of 2007 against Petitioner Nos.2 - 5 seeking declaration,
injunction and other reliefs in regard to subject land. He would submit
that after a full fledged trial, Civil Court passed judgment dated
28.03.2013 dismissing the Suit and returned two specific findings that
the Sale Deed dated 03.05.1971 claimed to be in favour of private
Respondent No.3 Gajanan Govind Alimkar was executed without prior
permission of the Competent Authority and the said private
Respondent No.3 Gajanan Govind Alimkar was never in possession of
subject land. Copy of this judgment dated 28.03.2013 is appended at
Exhibit "F" page No.38 to present Petition. He would submit that above
judgment was not challenged any further by private Respondent No.3
Gajanan Govind Alimkar and hence it attained finality.
2 of 9
WP.5546.2025.doc
5. In the above background, it is seen that private Respondent
No.3 Gajanan Govind Alimkar filed RTS Appeal No.219 of 2013 for
revival of Mutation Entry No.824 dated 08.04.1973. Prima facie there
is a delay of 41 years. Record shows that no condonation of delay
application is filed by private Respondent No.3 Gajanan Govind
Alimkar. Further in the meanwhile, Gajanan Govind Alimkar expired
and his legal heirs being Respondent Nos.3(a) to (h) are impleaded as
private Respondents.
6. When the matter is called out, Advocate for private
Respondents are not present. Record shows that private Respondents
are duly represented by Advocates since 12.12.2025. All office
objections are removed. Additional Government Pleader appears in the
matter for the State. Matter is listed on Supplementary Board. Mr.
Salunke informs the Court that all Respondents are duly served, all
objections are removed and Respondents are represented by
Advocates. Hearing of the matter cannot be delayed any further.
7. It is seen that Sub - Divisional Officer (for short "SDO")
allowed appeal filed by original private Respondent by order dated
08.01.2014. Two crucial facts, namely, fact that condonation of delay
application was ignored in said order and the further fact that original
private Respondent failed in Suit proceedings to fructify his title are
ignored in the said order. The SDO solely relied upon Government
3 of 9
WP.5546.2025.doc
Resolution dated 09.07.2002 holding that Mutation Entry No.824 of
1973 can be revived as valid if private Respondent is directed to pay
50% of the market value of the subject land as on date. This order is
appended at Exhibit "G" to the Petition whereby the SDO after 41 years
has revived Mutation Entry No.824 and resultantly this order sets aside
4 intervening long standing Mutation Entries effected over the said 41
years.
8. It is seen that Petitioner filed Appeal before the Additional
Collector which set aside SDO’s order holding that SDO has no
jurisdiction to grant such permission and allow appeal. Thereafter the
private Respondents approached Additional Commissioner in first
Revision proceedings and judgment dated 21.08.2018 was passed
upholding order of Additional Collector. In the meanwhile, despite the
above order, Tahsildar suo moto called for a hearing before Deputy
Collector for payment of 50% of market value by original private
Respondent No.3 which was strongly resisted by Petitioners. However
the SDO went ahead and passed order dated 12.02.2019 regularising
the Sale transaction of 1971 and Mutation Entry No.824 on the basis of
Government Circulars and Resolutions allowing private Respondents to
deposit 50% market value of subject lands was passed without
considering the decree of the Civil Court.
4 of 9
WP.5546.2025.doc
9. The Petitioners being aggrieved, challenged order dated
12.02.2019 before Additional Collector which was dismissed without
assigning any reasons. In second Revision before State, Revision is
further dismissed paving the way for Respondent No.3 to pay the
amount of 50% of market value to regularise the 1971 Sale transaction
after 41 years, pursuant to which mutation was effected and names of
private Respondents are mutated and entered.
10. I have heard Mr. Salunke learned Advocate for Petitioners,
Mr. Nimbalkar, learned Additional Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1 and with their able assistance perused the entire
record of the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar
have received due consideration of the Court.
11. At the outset it is seen that all quasi – judicial authorities
below have committed a gross error in ignoring the judgment passed
by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.649 of 2007 dated
28.03.2013. Suit of private Respondent is dismissed therein. Finding of
fact that sale transaction was without prior permission from
Competent Authority is upheld by Civil Court and further finding of
fact that private Respondent was not in possession of subject lands was
returned.
12. It is seen that most importantly, judgment dated 28.03.2013
passed by Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.649 of 2007 became
5 of 9
WP.5546.2025.doc
absolute and final. Once the Civil Court returns the above findings,
quasi – judicial authorities cannot sit in appeal and determine the title
by regularising the same sale transaction. They in any event do not
have the right and authority to determine question of entitlement and
adjudicate disputed question of title in RTS proceedings. This is the
basic fallacy in the orders passed by the quasi – judicial authorities
which are challenged herein. The order passed in Appeal by Additional
Collector, Thane in RTS No.191 of 2016 holding that such power to
grant permission only lies with Government and SDO cannot grant
permission to pay 50% market value for entitlement after 41 years
without even condoning the delay is the correct order and ruling in the
present case. What is shocking is that in the meantime, SDO has
allowed private Respondent to pay the amount of Rs.1.22 crores on
29.03.2014 and has certified fresh Mutation Entry No.2028 dated
11.04.2014.
13. The conduct of SDO despite order dated 08.01.2014 been set
aside by Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner is prima
facie shocking. Repeated attempts are made by SDO to aid and assist
the private Respondents’ case herein however facts in the present case
are such that original private Respondent has lost in the Civil Court. He
has not challenged that judgment in first appeal, therefore through
RTS proceedings and with the collusion and aid of SDO, despite the
order dated 08.01.2014 being set aside, private Respondents are
6 of 9
WP.5546.2025.doc
allowed to deposit 50% market value of subject land, mutation is
effected and a sale transaction rejected by the Civil Court is accepted
for transfer of the subject land. Such an action on the part of the SDO
is not only high handed, but illegal altogether. It cannot be sustained
at all and deserve to be interfered with forthwith.
14. It is seen that gross dereliction has taken place whereby
despite the SDO’s order dated 08.01.2014 having been set aide, 4 years
thereafter the Tahsildar has called for hearing before the Collector with
regard to implementation of the same order. Such conduct of the quasi
judicial officers determining and adjudicating title taking advantage of
Government Resolutions, when the Civil Court has specifically returned
a finding of fact regarding possession never been with the original
private Respondent No. 3 cannot be countenanced. Reliance is placed
on Government Resolution dated 17.07.2008 by the said Authority but
that Government Resolution applies only when possession of land is
with the concerned party / regrantee at the time of application for
seeking regularization. In the present case, admittedly Mutation Entry
No.824 of 1973 was quashed and set aside by 4 subsequent Mutation
Entries and most importantly possession of the subject land has always
and at all times remained with Petitioner Nos.2 to 5. The categorical
finding in judgment dated 28.03.2013 that original private Respondent
No.3 was never in possession of the subject land renders applicability
of the Government Resolution dated 17.07.2008 completely
7 of 9
WP.5546.2025.doc
infructuous to the case of the original private Respondent No. 3. This is
a classic case where a litigant loses in the Civil Court, chooses not to
challenge the judgment in appeal and acquires the same relief in RTS
proceedings with the blessings of the Revenue Officers.
15. Once this is the position, order dated 14.10.2024 passed by
State, order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner
and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Deputy Collector regularizing
transaction of 1971 reviving Mutation Entry No.824 in the aforesaid
facts and circumstances and certifying new Mutation Entry 2028 is
impermissible in law, wholly illegal and are therefore quashed and set
aside.
16. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings, Petition
succeeds. The aforesaid orders are quashed and set aside. Rights of
private Respondents acquired through the original private Respondent
No.3 (Govind Gajanan Alimkar) to file statutory First Appeal to
challenge the judgment dated 28.03.2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit
No.648 of 2007 is kept open strictly in accordance with law. That is the
correct course of action. RTS proceedings and Government Resolution
cannot be used as a ruse to transfer title of land holdings in the
manner in which it is done in the present facts and circumstances. In
view of the above, Mutation Entry 2028 certified on 11.04.2014 is
quashed, set aside and cancelled. Mutation Entry No.824 which
8 of 9
WP.5546.2025.doc
superseded Mutation Entry No.595 is quashed and set aside. Original
Mutation Entry No.595 dated 28.04.1963 is hereby restored, which
shall be effected in the Revenue Record by the concerned Competent
Authority within a period of 2 weeks form the date of service of a
server copy of this order on the concerned authority by the Petitioners.
17. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
Ajay by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.05.01
18:43:41
+0530
9 of 9
Checking your session…