Bombay High Court

Hanumant Raghunath KadamversusKailas Buasaheb Garade

Decided: 10 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

A mutation entry cannot be challenged after an inordinate delay of over 50 years, and the order condoning such delay is illegal.

Summary

The petitioners sought to challenge a mutation entry made in 1970 in their favour, based on a sale deed dated 20 October 1970, after a delay of more than 50 years. The respondents argued that the sale deed, being for Rs.99/-, did not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the mutation entry was merely fiscal, with substantive rights to be determined by a civil court. The Sub‑Divisional Officer had previously condoned the petitioners' delay, but the High Court held that such an extensive delay could not be condoned and that the order was illegal. The Court emphasized that any dispute over the validity of the sale must be resolved through appropriate civil proceedings, not by revisiting the mutation entry after five decades. Consequently, the order condoning the delay was quashed, and the petition was disposed, leaving the parties to pursue civil remedies.

Issues considered

Whether a mutation entry made in 1970 can be challenged after a delay of more than 50 years.
Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer could lawfully condone such a delay.
Whether a sale deed of Rs.99/- requires registration under the Registration Act, 1908.

Legislation cited

Registration Act, 1908 — s. 17

Subjects

mutation entry
delay condonation
Registration Act
civil suit
property law
statute of limitations
rectification

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:37674


            Diksha Rane                                             21 WP 8542 2026.docx



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    WRIT PETITION NO.8542/2026
            Hanumant Raghunath Kadam & Ors.                 ..PETITIONERS
                      VS
            Kailas Buasaheb Garade & Anr.                   ..RESPONDENTS


                 Adv. Namrata S. Bobade a/w. Adv. Sachin Nagarkar for
                 petitioners.

                 Adv. Vaibhav Ugle a/w. Adv. Prashant Mahajan, Adv. Mohan
                 Waghmode for respondent no.1.

                 AGP Hamid Mulla for respondent – State.

                                               CORAM       : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                                               DATE        : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

            Per Court :
            1.             Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

            2.             A mutation entry carried in favour of the petitioners in the
            year 1970 based on a sale transaction dated 20 th October, 1970, is
            challenged by the respondent after a delay of more than 50 years.
            The Sub-Divisional Officer concerned while entertaining the appeal
            has condoned the delay by observing that there is illegality in making
            the mutation entry. The delay is exceptionally large in challenging
            the mutation entry and the appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the

                                                  Page 1 of 3
                                            10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane                                          21 WP 8542 2026.docx



original vendors. Without challenged to the basic documents i.e. the
Sale Deed before the Civil Court, it is not permissible for the
Appellate authority to entertain a challenge to the mutation entry at
a belated stage with delay of 52 years.

3.            Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated
that the Sale Deed is of Rs.99/- and not a registered document and
under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the registration is
only required for sale of beyond Rs.100/-. If there is no valid
transfer, the respondents are at liberty to take such steps as are
available in law. The mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes
and the right inter se between the parties can be determined by the
Civil Courts and in the event the decree be passed in favour of the
respondents, the respondents are at liberty to apply for rectification
of the mutation entry.

4.            Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that
the petitioners have filed the civil suit simplicitor for injunction and
the same is pending for consideration.

5.            The delay being substantially large, beyond 50 years, the
same ought not to have been condoned by the concerned Sub-
Divisional Officer, the order passed is exfacie illegal and the same is
passed on consideration of the merits of the matter and not for the
reasons of delay.


                                    Page 2 of 3
                              10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                      Diksha Rane                                                21 WP 8542 2026.docx



                      6.              Considering the same, the order condoning the delay of 53
                      years is quashed and set aside leaving parties open a such civil
                      remedies as are available in law. If such civil proceedings are filed in
                      the Civil Court, the same be decided in accordance with law without
                      being influenced by any observations made in the present
                      proceeding.

                      7.              The petition is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                       [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]




                                                             Page 3 of 3
                                                       10th SEPTEMBER, 2026


Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/09/2026 16:30:20

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…