Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17759 OF 2024 SHRI. BALSHIRAM VITTHAL HANDE AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS Versus ANJALI NARESH CHOUHAN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye a/w Mr. Akshay Pansare, Mr. Nipun Sawane, Ms. Vrushali Shivgun, Mr. Atharva S. Pawar & Mr. Ayush Hasabnis, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Dubepatil a/w Mr. Ashish Gabhale i/b Mr. Anantrao Kate, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Hamid Mulla, learned AGP for the State-Respondent. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026. Per Court : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 2. It appears from the record that after the demise of father of the Petitioners, the Petitioners who are brothers, filed a suit for partition without making the Respondents-sisters as a party to the 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx partition suit. The partition decree was obtained on 12th June, 2015 and in pursuance thereto a mutation entry no. 4697 was carried out on 9th March, 2016. Subsequently, the sisters, i.e. the Respondents herein filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 127 of 2017 for partition and also for declaration that the earlier decree is not binding on them, as they were not parties to the earlier suit. The said suit is pending consideration. 3. In the year 2018 in the interregnum the Respondents-sisters also challenged the mutation entry made in favour of the Petitioners bearing no. 4697. The said appeal was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (“SDO”) on 22nd June, 2018. Thereafter the Petitioners preferred a Revision Application before the Additional Collector, which was also dismissed on 20th August, 2019. Thereafter the Petitioners filed another Revision Application before the Additional Commissioner. 4. The Additional Commissioner by order dated 24th March, 2021 allowed the Revision Application by holding that until the decree passed in favour of the Petitioners in partition suit is set aside, it was not proper for the Revenue Authority to set aside the mutation entry made in favour of the Petitioners. Thereafter the Review Application is filed by Respondent No. 1 before the same authority, which was allowed on the ground that earlier consent decree was not registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the stamp 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx duty was also not paid thereon and accordingly, he allowed the review application and set aside the mutation entry no. 4697. 5. The Petitioners carried the order of Revisional Authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner dated 3rd July, 2023 passed in the Review Application before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister dismissed the Revision Application and also further observed that the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 24th March, 2021 is set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister and has made two-fold submissions. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in absence of a disclosure of the civil suit filed in the year 2017, the mutation entry made in favour of the Petitioners in the year 2016 ought not to have been set aside on an application by Respondent No. 1, particularly when Respondent No. 1 failed to bring it to the notice of the authority that the civil suit for partition is still pending. 8. Learned counsel also submits that the Hon’ble Minister while exercising the power of revision, at the highest could have dismissed the Revision Application, but could have not further observed that the order dated 24th March, 2021 passed by the 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx Additional Commissioner is set aside, that puts him in a more adverse situation than he was before the Additional Commissioner. 9. Both the submissions however of the learned counsel for Petitioners, cannot be accepted. 10. It is undisputed fact that Respondent No. 1 was not made a party to the civil suit for partition filed by the Petitioners and a partition decree in the said suit is accordingly not binding upon them. The sisters names in addition are recorded in the mutation entry. Such a entry made, is in the natural course appropriate, as their names were left out and Respondent No. 1 is also the legal heir of deceased father of the Petitioners. 11. As regards the second submission of the Petitioners that the Hon’ble Minister ought not to have further observed that the Additional Commissioner order dated 24th March, 2021 is set aside, it is hardly of any consequence, since the Additional Commissioner has himself reviewed the order dated 24th March, 2021 and set aside the mutation entry. The order of Additional Commissioner dated 24th March, 2021 stood reviewed by him and that the original order dated 24th March, 2021 stood merged with the subsequent order passed in the Review Application dated 3rd July, 2023. 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 Gitalaxmi 10-WP-17759-2024.docx 12. As such, both the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioners, cannot be accepted. It is a settled law that the revenue entries would be subject to the civil proceedings. 13. Considering this aspect, the revenue entries made now presently standing would ultimately be subject to the civil suit filed by Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioners. 14. The successful party would be at liberty to apply for rectification of the mutation entry, if necessary, based on the decree passed by the Civil Court. 15. With these observations, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2026.09.23 14:56:10 +0530