J-WP-4052-22 1/9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4052 OF 2022 1) Abedabi Sheikh Gulab Nabi, Aged about 90 years, Off. Nil (Died) 2) Sheikh Rafique Sheikh Gulab Nabi (Dead) through his legal heirs: 2-A) Malanbi Sheikh Rafique 2-B) Sheikh Iliyas Sheikh Rafique, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Labour. 2-C) Sheikh Ayaz Sheikh Rafique, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Labour, All above are R/o. Malipura, Ward No.9, Tehsil Chikhli and Dist. Buldana. 2-D) Shabanabi Sheikh Ibrahim Aged about 42 years, Occ. Household R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Chikhli, Tehsil Chikhli and Dist.Buldhana 2-E) Farzanabi Sheikh Salim, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Borkheda Road, Near Prince Tailor, Dhad, Tehsil Chikhli and Dist. Buldhana. 2-F) Saminabi Sheikh Javed, Aged about 35, Occ. Household, R/o Swana, Near Masjid, Tehsil Chikhli and Dist. Buldhana. 2-G) Mobinabi Sheikh Wasim, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Household R/o. Malipura Ward No.9, Tehsil Chikhli and Dist. Buldhana. 3) Sheikh Nazir Sheikh Gulab Nabi, Aged about 60 years, Agriculturist. Occ. 4) Sheikh Rabbani Sheikh Gulab Nabi (Dead), through his legal heirs: 2026:BHC-NAG:11635 J-WP-4052-22 2/9 4-A) Ruksanabi Sheikh Rabbani, Aged about 52 Years, Occ. Household. 4-B) Irfanabi Sheikh Rais, Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Household. 4-C) Sheikh Shaizad Sheikh Rabbani, Aged about 36 Years, Occ. Labour. 4-D) Sheikh Sultan Sheikh Rabbani, Aged about 30 Years, Occ. Labour. 4-E) Farzanabi Abid Khan, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Household. 5) Sheikh Yazdani Sheikh Gulab Nabi, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist. 6) Sheikh Taher Sheikh Gulab Nabi, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist. Above petitioner No.3 to 6 are R/o. Malipura Ward No.9, Tehsil Chikhli and Dist. Buldhana. 7) Sheikh Sahebnoorbi Salim Kasab, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Barabhai Mohalla, Old Chikhli, Near Jama Masjid Chikhli, Tehsil Chikhli and Dist. Buldhana. …. Petitioners Versus 1) Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division. Amravati. 2) Additional Collector, Buldhana, Dist. Buldhana. 3) Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldhana. 4) Talathi Chikhli (Bhag-1), Tehsil Chikhli and Dist. Buldhana. 5) Tayyab Noorbi Nasir Khan (Dead), through her Legal Heirs: 5-A) Mushir Khan Nasir Khan, J-WP-4052-22 3/9 Aged about 48 years, Occ. Tailor, 5-B) Mujahid Khan Nasir Khan, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Tailor, 5-C) Bilkisbi Shabbir Miya, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Housewife, Above respondent No.5-A to 5-C are R/o. Malipura, Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana. 5-D) Nafisa bi Sheikh Majid, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Near Masjid Nadi Naka Gausiya Hotel, Noorani Masjid, Amina Bag, Bhiwandi, Thane, Mumbai. 5-E) Najatun bi Daulat khan, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Household, R/o Sailani Nagar, Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana. 5-F) Birjis bi Sheikh Aejaz, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Undri, Tq. Chikhli and Dist. Buldhana. 5-G) Shagufta bi sheikh Khalid, Aged about 35 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o.Lakhanwada, Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana. 6) Rehnabi Abdul Rahim, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household, Tehsil R/o. Walsawangi, Bhokardhan, Dist. Jalna. 7) Sheikh Zakirabi Abdul Rabbani, Aged about 55 years, Occ.Household, R/o. Malipura Ward No.1, Tehsil Chikhli and Dist. Buldhana. … Respondents Shri Syed Owais Ahmed Advocate for petitioners. Smt M. A. Barabde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri A. M. Chandekar, Advocate for respondent No.7. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : August 27, 2026 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : September 02, 2026 J-WP-4052-22 4/9 Judgment : Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By way of this Writ Petition the petitioners seek to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in Revision Application No. 102/RTS-64/Shelud/2017-18, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioners was dismissed, thereby confirming the order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Buldhana, in the appeal preferred by Respondent Nos.5 to 7. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that one Gulab Sheikh Abdulla was the original owner of the subject property admeasuring 4.70 HR out of 5.10 HR in Survey No. 128, situated at Mauza Chikhli, District Buldhana. Upon the demise of Gulab Sheikh Abdulla, the subject property came to be mutated in the names of petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 vide Mutation Entry No. 1399 dated 04.09.2009. The names of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and petitioner No. 7 were excluded on the premise that they had relinquished their right, title, and interest in the subject property by executing a relinquishment deed dated 05.10.1991. J-WP-4052-22 5/9 4. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties challenging the mutation entries as well as the relinquishment deed. For convenience, the prior history of the litigation is set out in the table below: Sr. No. Filed By Date of Filing Forum/Authority Outcome Date of order 1. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 24.08.2015 Appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldhana (R-3) Appeal dismissed 02.01.2017 2. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 04.01.2016 Regular Civil Suit njo.5/2016 before Civil Judge Junior Division, Chikhli Buldhana Pending adjudication ---- 3. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 20.03.2017 Appeal before Additional Collector, Buldhana Appeal allowed; order dated 02.01.2017 27.07.2017 4 Present petitioners 28.08.2017 Revision Application before Additional Commissioner, Amravati Revision dismissed 25.10.2021 5. By the impugned order dated 25.10.2021, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, dismissed the Petitioners' revision application, thereby upholding the order of the Additional Collector, Buldhana, directing the recording of the names of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the revenue record and making necessary corrections in Mutation Entry No.1399. J-WP-4052-22 6/9 6. Heard Shri Syed Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri A.M. Chandekar, learned counsel for respondent No. 7, and Smt M.A. Barabde, learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 preferred the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldhana (Respondent No. 3) on 24.08.2015, challenging the mutation entry dated 04.09.2009 after an inordinate delay of six years, that too without preferring an application for condonation of delay. It was contended that this vital aspect was completely overlooked while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that since the Regular Civil Suit is sub judice, the revenue authorities ought to have awaited the outcome of the civil proceedings. 8. Lastly, he submitted that any right, title, or interest of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the subject property stood extinguished upon the execution of the relinquishment deed dated 05.10.1991, which has not been challenged before the competent Civil Court. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5478 of 2016 and the judgment in Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur and Others v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur J-WP-4052-22 7/9 and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 176. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No.7 supported the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on Malhar s/o Balkrushna Kulkarni and Others v. Divisional Commissioner and Others, 2024 DGLS (Bom.) 2785 and Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2016 (1) RCR (Civil) 258. 10. I have considered the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. As can be seen from the record and as has been vehemently argued by Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners that right from inception, the petitioners herein have objection regarding maintainability of the proceedings on the ground of limitation. Even though the Sub Divisional Officer has dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents, the same is on merits and the question of limitation has not been dealt with specifically. The Additional Collector while allowing the appeal has also not taken into consideration the fact that the appeal itself was not maintainable being barred by limitation. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction has adverted to that ground. J-WP-4052-22 8/9 11. Shri A. M. Chandekar, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that there is an alternate remedy in the form of further revision before the State Government. But has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court vide judgment dated 19/12/2019 in Writ Petition No.5478/2016 (Shri Abdul Shahid S/o Abdul Khalik Patel vs. Shri Abdul Rab S/o Abdul Mabud Patel and ors.) has categorically held that further revision as contemplated under Section 257 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could not be an alternative efficacious remedy to non-suit the petitioners. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners this Court in Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur (supra), this Court has held that in absence of an application for condonation of delay and in absence of an order thereon, the order passed on the main application would be without jurisdiction. 12. Taking overall view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order does not take into consideration the said fact and therefore is without any jurisdiction. The fact however remain that the application for mutation filed by the respondents was decided on its own merits. J-WP-4052-22 9/9 13. In that view of the matter, following order is passed : (i) Order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Revision Application No.102/RTS-64/Shelud/2017-18 by respondent No.1- Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati- and the order dated 27.07.2017 passed by respondent No.2- Additional Collector Buldhana in Appeal No.RTS-64/Shelud/84/2016-17 are quashed and set aside. (ii) However, liberty is granted to the respondents to file an application for condonation of delay explaining the delay caused in filing proceedings for mutation. (iii) If such an application is filed, the petitioners herein will be entitled to oppose the application on the ground available in law and the Sub Divisional Officer would decide the same initially in accordance with law taking into consideration the reasons for condonation of delay after hearing the parties. Only thereafter the application for mutation filed by the respondents would be dealt with and decided on merits. 14. With these directions, the writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 18:39:22