Bombay High Court

SUDAM BABANRAO ADAK AND ORSversusTHE HONORABLE MINISTER REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT AND ORS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court disposed of both writ petitions, holding that the limitation dismissal of the civil suit precludes further challenge and that a civil decree supersedes any mutation entry.

Summary

The petitioners sought to quash a revision order dated 21 November 2025 and to uphold an earlier order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer dated 17 March 2025 concerning a land acquisition matter. The respondents pointed out that a civil suit filed by the petitioners for declaration of title had been dismissed on limitation grounds and that the petitioners had filed an application to withdraw the appeal. The petitioners, however, claimed to have instituted a fresh suit on the same subject matter. The court observed that once a suit for declaration of title is dismissed for limitation, there is no merit in keeping the writ petitions pending, especially given a 62‑year delay in challenging the mutation entry. It reiterated the settled principle that a decree of a civil court supersedes any mutation entry in revenue records, and that any successful suit would permit rectification of the mutation. Consequently, both writ petitions were disposed of and the interim relief was vacated, leaving all other rights and contentions open.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petitions challenging the revision order and the earlier order should be dismissed in view of the limitation defence and pending civil suit.
Whether a decree of a civil court supersedes a mutation entry in revenue records.
Whether the interim relief granted in the writ petitions should be vacated.

Subjects

mutation entry
limitation
civil suit
declaration of title
writ petition
revenue records
land acquisition

Judgment

Gitalaxmi                                            22-WP-7032-2026+.docx



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                   WRIT PETITION NO. 7032 OF 2026
                               WITH
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 6988 OF 2026
SUDAM BABANRAO ADAK AND OTHERS                       ...PETITIONERS
                        Versus
THE HON’BLE MINISTER
REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT., PUNE
AND OTHERS                                           ...RESPONDENTS

     Mr. Jaydeep Deo i/b Mr. Onkar Gawade, Advocate for the
     Petitioners in both the Petitions.
     Mr. Ramesh Soni a/w Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal & Mr. Rohit Jain
     i/b Jayakar and Partners, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 4 to
     6.
     Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for the State-Respondent in
     WP/7032/2026.
     Ms. Sarina R. crasto, AGP for the State-Respondent in
     WP/6988/2026.

                                 CORAM     : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                                 DATE      : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1.          Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2.          In the present Petitions, the Petitioners prayed for quashing
and setting aside the judgment and order dated 21 st November, 2025

                                    Page 1 of 3
                              7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                              22-WP-7032-2026+.docx



passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department in
the revision application and for uphelding the judgment and order
dated 17th March, 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land
Acquisition No. 6), Pune in the appeal.

3.          Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submits that
qua the same subject matter, civil suit filed by the Petitioners for
declaration of the title stands dismissed on the ground of limitation
and the appeal is filed, in which application for withdrawal of the
appeal is filed by the Petitioners before the Appellate Court.

4.          Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that he has filed
a fresh suit qua the same subject matter.

5.          Considering that once the suit for declaration of title is
dismissed on the ground of limitation, there is no purpose in keeping
the present Petitions pending. The present Petitions involve a delay
of 62 years in challenging the mutation entry.

6.          It is a settled law that the decree passed by the learned Civil
Court adjudicating the rights between the parties would supersede
any mutation entry and would apply to the revenue records.

7.          In the event the Petitioners succeed in the civil suit filed by
him, they would be entitled to seek rectification of the mutation
entry.


                                    Page 2 of 3
                              7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                 22-WP-7032-2026+.docx



8.          With these observations, both the present Writ Petitions
stand disposed of.

9.          All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

10.         Interim relief stands vacated.




                                                  [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]

              GITALAXMI
              KRISHNA
              KOTAWADEKAR
              Digitally signed by
              GITALAXMI KRISHNA
              KOTAWADEKAR
              Date: 2026.09.10
              10:18:36 +0530




                                          Page 3 of 3
                                    7th SEPTEMBER, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…