Bombay High Court
DHARMARAJ BALIRAM BHATLAWANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The Court held that the appeal could not be condoned due to lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmaraj Baliram Bhatlawande, challenged a 1985 mutation entry (No. 94) that purportedly recorded a partition of his land among his brothers, alleging it was fraudulent. He filed an appeal to the Sub‑Divisional Officer in 2017 to condone the delay in contesting the mutation, but the appeal was rejected on grounds of untimely filing. Simultaneously, the petitioner has a pending civil suit (No. 1143 of 2017) seeking partition and separate possession of the land. The High Court examined whether the revenue authorities could be compelled to condone the delay and whether the writ petition was maintainable while the civil suit was sub‑judice. The Court found no justification for condoning the delay, noted that the parties' rights would be determined by the civil court, and declined to interfere with the revenue order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the mutation entry can be condoned.
- Whether a writ petition challenging a revenue order is maintainable when a civil suit concerning the same land is pending.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the revenue authority's order rejecting the appeal.
Subjects
- mutation entry
- land records
- delay condonation
- civil suit pending
- partition
- revenue law
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:32282
1 wp 8198.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
10 WRIT PETITION NO. 8198 OF 2026
Dharmaraj Baliram Bhatlawande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through It’s Secretary And Ors
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A.J. Mete
AGP for Respondents: Mr. R.K. Ingole
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated
28.3.2025 passed by the Secretary (Revenue & Forest
Department) Mantralaya, Mumbai in file no.
2023/Pra.Kra.397/Ja-7A & Pra.Kra. 394(08) 2024/A.Va.Pu as
well as order dated 28.09.2022 passed by learned Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad in File No.2021/ROR/REV/CR-226
and order dated 21.10.2020 passed by District Collector in File
no.2020/RTS/7 and order dated 16.12.2029 passed by Sub
Divisional Officer, Kallamb in file no.2018 ROR/CR-224,
thereby rejecting petitioner’s application to condone the delay
caused in filing the appeal challenging the mutation entry
no.94 in respect of the land bearing gat no.48 admeasuring 2H
2 wp 8198.2026.odt
64R situated at village Shelgaon (D), Tq. Kallam, Dist.
Osmanabad.
2. The petitioner contends that respondent nos.7 to 10 are
his real brothers. Petitioner had purchased a crushing machine
and out of said income, he had purchased land admeasuring
80 R from gut no.48. Accordingly, mutation entry no.37 was
taken in his name and it was continued till 9.8.2017.
However, false and fraudulent record is prepared in respect of
mutation entry no.94 dated 17.2.1985 showing that petitioner
had effected partition amongst his brothers.
3. Pertinently, petitioner has instituted Regular Civil Suit
No.1143 of 2017 before learned Civil Judge S.D. Kallamb
seeking relief of partition and separate possession. Said suit is
pending before the Court. Respondents took a stand in suit on
the basis of mutation entry no.94 dated 17.02.1985. In this
backdrop, petitioner raised challenge to mutation entry no.94
by filing appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kallamb.
Said appeal was rejected on the point of delay. The order
passed by Sub Divisional Officer is confirmed up to State
Government, which is subjected to challenge in this writ
petition.
3 wp 8198.2026.odt
4. On consideration of reasoning adopted by Revenue
Authorities, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the order
as mutation entry of 1985 was challenged first time in appeal
filed in the year 2017 without there being appropriate
explanation for it. Needles to state here that rights of parties
are subjudice before Civil Court in R.C.S. no.1143 of 2017.
Petitioner can establish his own rights without prejudice of
mutation entry and Respondents/Authorities shall be bound by
the decree of Civil Court determining rights of parties and shall
be under obligation to correct mutation entry based on
decision of the Civil Court.
5. Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected with aforesaid
observations.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
Judge
…
aaa/f-
Checking your session…