INDURI FARMS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusNAKUBAI BARKU VAJE SINCE DECD. THR HEIRS

Gitalaxmi                                            26-WP-9441-2026.docx



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                   WRIT PETITION NO. 9441 OF 2026

INDURI FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED                         ...PETITIONER

                        Versus

NAKUBAI BARKU VAJE SINCE DECD. THROUGH
HEIRS AND ANOTHER                      ...RESPONDENTS


     Mr. Birendra Saraf, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Omar Ahmad, Mr.
     Vikram Shah, Ms. Gauri Joshi & Mr. Tuhin Dubey i/b Ganesh
     & Co., learned counsels for the Petitioner.

     Mr. Divyesh K. Jain, learned counsel for the Respondents.

     S. L. Babar, learned AGP for the State-Respondent.

                                 CORAM     : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                                 DATE      : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

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

2.          Mr. Birendra Saraf, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the mutation entry made in the year 1966 has been
challenged by the Respondents in the year 2025, i.e. after a period of
58 years, under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966 (“MLRC”).
                                    Page 1 of 4
                              7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                            26-WP-9441-2026.docx



3.          In the appeal preferred by the Respondents, an application
for condonation of delay of 58 years has been filed, and the said
application was under consideration.        The arguments before the
Appellate authority were restricted to the reasons of condonation of
delay. It is the case of Petitioner that the delay of 58 years should
not be condoned in challenging the mutation entry.

4.          Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
SDO has decided the appeal by exercising powers under the
provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of
Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, (“the Act”) and the mutation
entry in favour of the Petitioner has been set aside. In this regard,
learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that there was no
application under the Act, so also suo moto powers under the Act
cannot be exercised without notice and enquiry. The Petitioner was
also not put to notice of exercise of the powers under the Act. The
proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (“SDO”)
related to the mutation entry entered in the year 1966 and the
application for condonation of delay was under consideration.

5.          Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that while
considering the application for condonation of delay, there was no
occasion for the SDO to exercise powers under the Act.

6.          Per contra, Mr. Divyesh Jain, learned counsel for the
Respondents submits that the SDO has jurisdiction to exercise
                                   Page 2 of 4
                             7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                           26-WP-9441-2026.docx



powers under the provisions of Act, particularly under Sections 3 and
4 of the Act and such powers can be exercised suo moto or an
application and that the authority concerned has rightly exercised the
powers within 30 years from the year 2004.

7.          Having perused the records, it appears that the application
is filed challenging the mutation entry of the year 1966 and the
proceedings before the SDO is related to the condonation of delay
alone. The arguments canvassed by the parties are also related only
to the condonation of delay. There is no application for exercise of
powers under the provisions of Act. As such, the concerned authority
could not have never travelled beyond the application invoking the
same, without appropriate notice to the Petitioner. The concerned
authority could have either condoned the delay on its merits or
dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The SDO has not
issued any notice under the Act.

8.          Considering the same, this Court finds that the SDO has
exceeded his jurisdiction and pass the impugned order and
accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the concerned authority. The authority
concerned to consider the arguments on delay condonation
application and pass the appropriate orders thereon. In the event the
SDO condones the delay, he may admit the appeal for hearing.



                                   Page 3 of 4
                             7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                  26-WP-9441-2026.docx



9.             With these observations, the present Writ Petition stands
disposed of.




                                                   [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]



                  Digitally signed
                  by GITALAXMI
      GITALAXMI   KRISHNA
      KRISHNA     KOTAWADEKAR
      KOTAWADEKAR Date:
                  2026.09.12
                  13:22:27 +0530




                                           Page 4 of 4
                                     7th SEPTEMBER, 2026