IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16877 OF 2024 Jagdish Balkrishna Shelar & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents through Revenue Department & Ors. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w Mr. Mayank Tripathi for Petitioner. Smt. A.A. Nadkarni, AGP for State. Ms. Kinjal Gogri i/b Mr. Piyush Shah for Respondent nos. 5 to 8. Mr. Afsar Ansari i/b Mr. Vishal Patil for Respondents nos. 11 and 12. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 6th August 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 20th January 2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wada, Wada Division, condoning the delay of 45 years in challenging Mutation Entry No. 1387. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the delay has been condoned bereft of any reasons, merely observing that the dispute is between the brothers. However, learned counsel points out that the Respondent- 1/3 53 WP 16877.2024.doc Dusane original Applicant before the Sub-Divisional Officer was fully aware of the mutation entry. This is evident from his own communication dated 17th November 2023 addressed to the Hon’ble Minister, wherein he has stated that he was aware of the mutation entry having been made sometime in the year 1993 and had called upon the Tahsildar to rectify the same. Since the same was not done, an application was made at this stage, i.e. in the year 2022. 4. Learned counsel submits that, in view of the admitted facts of the case, such a gross delay ought not to have been condoned. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that there has been no partition of the suit property and that, after obtaining certain orders from this Court, the Petitioner has also disposed of his properties in favour of third parties. Learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to a partition effected between the family members, the suit property in question was received by him under the Partition Deed. However, without any transfer of the said property by Respondent No. 3 in favour of the Petitioner, the same came to be mutated in the name of the Petitioner, and there was no transfer from Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner. 6. He submits that his substantial property rights in the suit property are affected and, therefore, he has applied for rectification of Mutation Entry 2/3 53 WP 16877.2024.doc Dusane No. 1387. 7. Considering that the mutation entry has remained in existence for a period of 45 years and that Respondent No. 3 was aware of the same at least for about 30 years, this Court is of the view that the delay ought not to have been condoned. However, his rights in the property cannot be affected by virtue of the mutation entry, as mutation entries are made only for fiscal purposes. 8. Respondent No. 3 is at liberty to seek such appropriate remedy before the Civil Court. Any mutation entry made in respect of the properties would ultimately be subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings that may be instituted between the parties. The rights in respect of the property can only be decided by the Civil Court. 9. In view of the above, the order condoning the delay is quashed and set aside. The parties are at liberty to seek appropriate civil remedies before the appropriate Civil Court. 10. All mutation entries made shall be subject to any such civil proceedings, if initiated by the parties. All contentions of both sides are left open, if any such civil proceedings are filed. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 3/3 53 WP 16877.2024.doc Dusane BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2026.08.11 17:51:03 +0530