Bombay High Court
GAIKWAD CONSTRUCTION THR OWNER SOMANTH DINKAR GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Minister’s order cancelling the mutation entries in favour of the petitioner is erroneous and is set aside, restoring the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s order subject to conditions.
Summary
The petition concerned a dispute over mutation entries of a property originally owned by the late Smt. Gangubai. The petitioner claimed title based on a registered sale deed and a mutation entry made in his favour, while the respondents, who obtained an heirship certificate in 2016, sought rectification of those entries. The Minister, in a revision petition, cancelled the petitioner’s mutation entries, but the petitioner argued that the matter was sub‑judice in a civil suit for partition and injunction. The High Court examined the competing claims and held that, since the civil proceedings were pending and no injunction had been granted, the Minister’s cancellation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court set aside the Minister’s order, restored the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s order, and imposed conditions that the petitioner not alter the entries until the civil court decides.
Issues considered
- Whether the Minister has the authority to cancel mutation entries in favour of the petitioner while civil proceedings are pending.
- Whether mutation entries can be altered before the final decision of the civil suit for partition and injunction.
- The effect of an heirship certificate on the validity of earlier mutation entries.
- The relative jurisdiction of the Additional Divisional Commissioner versus the Minister in revenue matters.
Subjects
- mutation entry
- heirship certificate
- sale deed
- civil suit
- partition
- injunction
- revenue authority
- rectification
- property dispute
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:38283-DB
Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6818/2026
GAIKWAD CONSTRUCTION THR
OWNER SOMANTH DINKAR GAIKWAD ..PETITIONER
VS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE
SECRETARY AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS
Adv. Rahul Kadam a/w. Adv. Ashim Tiwari for petitioner.
AGP Savina R. Crasto for respondent-State.
Adv. Sachin Khandagale for respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally,
with the consent of the parties
3. The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief can be
noticed as under:-
Page 1 of 6
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx
4. The original owner of the property one Smt. Gangubai has
expired in the year 1935. It is stated that one of the sons of Smt.
Gangubai has carried out mutation entries in his favour as the legal
heir of Smt. Gangubai in the year 2010.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the legal heir of Smt. Gangubai sold the property to the predecessor-
in-title of the petitioner and from him the petitioner has purchased
the property in the year 2011. He submits that the respondents
claiming to be two sons of Smt. Gangubai has also claimed right over
the property. They have also applied for heirship certificate in the
year 2014 which is granted in the year 2016 and on the basis of the
same has applied for rectification of the mutation entries made in
favour of their brother and have challenged subsequent mutation
entries which are based on the Sale Deed by brother of the
respondents in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner,
and also through in favour of the petitioner. The mutation entries
challenged are:
(i) Mutation Entry No.10285 ; (ii) Mutation Entry
No.10326 and (iii) Mutation Entry No.10162.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
from the year 1935 no mutation entry was carried out by the legal
heirs of Smt. Gangubai. Subsequently allegedly one of heirs has
carried out mutation entry as being only legal heir of Smt. Gangubai
Page 2 of 6
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx
and thereafter, the properties were transferred. He also disputes that
the present respondents are the brothers of the original heir from
whom they have purchased the property. The learned counsel submts
that the petitioner has purchased the property by the registered Sale
Deed and the mutation entry to that effect is carried out. Learned
counsel also submits that the civil suit is filed in the year 2021 by the
respondents for partition before the Civil Court and injunction
application filed therein is pending consideration before the Civil
Court and that no injunction has been granted till date in the matter.
He submits that in this fact situation, the order passed by the
Additional Divisional Commissioner holding that the mutation entry
in favour of the petitioners be not disturbed till the adjudiction by
the Civil Court is a correct order and all mutation entries are
ultimately subject to the orders passed by the Civil Court.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the Minister in a
Revision Petition filed against the order of the Additional Divisional
Commissioner interfered with the well reasoned order of the
Additional Divisional Commissioner and directed cancellation of the
mutation entries in favour of the petitioner and his predecessors.
Learned counsel submits that he has purchased the property for
valuable consideration and by a registered Sale Deed. Learned
counsel also submits that 11R land remaining in possession of the
petitioner has not been transferred after the order was passed by the
Additional Divisional Commissioner. The inter se rights between the
Page 3 of 6
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx
parties are subject to adjudication before the Civil Court and that the
mutation entry made in his favour can only be subject to the decision
of the Civil Court and the order of the Minister interfering with the
order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner is errenous and be
set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that he has obtained heirship certificate in the year 2016
which was applied in the year 2014 and that fraud was played upon
the branch of the two brothers by other brothers and only his
mutation entry has been carried out as the legal heir of late Smt.
Gangubai and based on the same mutation entry, is carried out in
further sale transactions. The Minister having noticed the heirship
certificate has recorded the names of the respondents in the mutation
entries as legal heirs of Smt. Gangubai and corresponding the entry
made in favour of the petitioner is set aside. He submits that the
Minister was within his authority to adjudicate whether the original
mutation entry carried out was erroneous and the Minister having
examined heirship certificate has rectified the mutation entries which
were earlier erroneously carried out.
9. In the instant case, this Court, prima facie, find that the
brother of the respondents had entered his name in the mutation
entry. The status of the respondents is also challenged although legal
heirship certificate is in their favour. The brother of the respondents
Page 4 of 6
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx
has transferred the property by the Sale Deed and put the petitioners
in possession of the property. This fact is disputed by the respondent.
10. Be that as it may, the registered Sale Deed is on record and
the civil suit filed for cancellation of the Sale Deed is also pending
consideration. The civil suit for partition is also pending
consideration and so far as there is no injunction granted by the trial
Court in any of the civil proceedings.
11. Considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioners
have a registered Sale Deed in their favour and civil proceedings for
setting aside the same are pending before the Civil Court, the
impugned order of the Hon’ble Minister is erroneous and is set aside
and the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 28 th
April, 2025, is restored, however subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not alter the mutation entries made in
their favour till decision of the Civil Court in the injunction
application.
(ii) In the event, the respondents succeed in the injuction
application in the pending civil suit or final orders are passed in
favour of the respondents qua the subject land, the respondents
would be entitled to apply for rectification of the mutation entries.
(iii) Needless to mention that the orders passed by the Civil
Court would be binding on the Revenue Authorities.
Page 5 of 6
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx
12. With the above observations, the present petition stands
disposed of. I have not expressed anything on the merits of the civil
proceedings and are to be decided in accordance with law without
being influenced by the observations made herein.
13. Rule confirmed in above terms.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 6 of 6
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/09/2026 18:36:58
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.