IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16260 OF 2024 Manhar Rathilal Bagadiya (deceased) .... Petitioners thru’ Legal Heirs Vs. Chetan Singh Chiman Singh Chauhan .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. Mandar Soman i/b Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Shrinivas Patwardhan a/w Mr. Manish Kelkar, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent nos. 2, 4 to 8 – State. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 23rd September 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that, by the Order dated 25th August 2009, the Hon’ble Minister dismissed the Revision Application filed by the Petitioners, challenging Mutation Entry No. 1698. 3. Subsequently, the Petitioner herein instituted Civil Suit No.31 of 2011 seeking an injunction against the Respondents in respect of the very same property for which Mutation Entry No. 1698 was recorded. The said Civil Suit came to be dismissed by an Order dated 20th May 2024. 1/5 5 WP 16260.24.doc Dusane BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2026.09.29 12:21:29 +0530 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that an Appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Court on 20th May 2024 has been filed and is pending consideration before the Appellate Court. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the tenancy claim of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In view of the two separate orders, one passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the other by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 31 of 2011, the Respondent no.1 filed an application for review, before the Hon’ble Minister, seeking review of the order dated 25th August 2009 passed in the Revision Petition, on the ground that the said order had expressly left open the possibility of seeking such a review, in the event of adjudication of right of the Respondent by a Civil Court. 6. An application for condonation of the delay in filing the Review Application in the Revision Petition was also filed, explaining the delay. 7. In view of the orders passed by the Civil Court as well as by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the learned Minister, by the impugned order dated 10th September 2024 condoned the delay of 15 years in filing Review Petition and also by the impugned order dated 14th October 2024 allowed the Review Petition and corresponding change to the mutation entry. 2/5 5 WP 16260.24.doc Dusane 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that it was not open to the concerned Minister to review the earlier order dated 25th August 2009 after a period of 15 years. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in view of the changed circumstances, as noticed above, at the highest, the Respondents may approach the concerned Revenue authority, i.e., the Tahsildar, for rectification/change of the mutation entries, particularly in view of the order passed by the Civil Court as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 10. In response thereto, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that, in view of the changed circumstances, the Respondent is entitled to approach the Hon’ble Minister for review of the earlier order. However, he further submits that, in view of the objections raised by the Petitioner, he has no objection if the application for review/fresh application for mutation is considered by the Revenue authority, i.e., the Tahsildar. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that he would make fresh application to the concerned Tahsildar for rectification of mutation entry. The concerned Tahsildar may, thereafter, pass appropriate orders after duly considering the order passed by the Civil Court in the Civil Suit, as well as the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 3/5 5 WP 16260.24.doc Dusane 11. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Minister in Review Application No. RTS-3424/3571/Pra.Kra 315/J-5 dated 14th October 2024 is hereby set aside. 12. However, liberty is reserved to the Respondent to approach the Tahsildar for rectification and/or alteration of the mutation entry, in view of the decisions rendered by the Civil Court and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 13. All the contentions of the parties are left open. 14. It is settled law that the orders passed by the Civil Court would ultimately be binding upon the Revenue Authorities, and the Revenue Authorities would act in accordance with law while considering the application of the Respondents. 15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal has been stayed by the same Tribunal in the Review Application. However, this submission is disputed by learned Counsel for the Respondents. The orders passed in the said proceedings are also placed on record. 16. Needless to state, the orders passed in the earlier revenue proceedings would not bind the revenue authorities in view of the changed circumstances, i.e. subsequent orders passed by the Civil Court and the 4/5 5 WP 16260.24.doc Dusane Revenue Tribunal. 17. If the application is filed within four weeks, the concerned authority shall decide the same within a period of four months. The Petitioners shall appear voluntarily, before the Tahsildar and no fresh notice shall be required. 18. The Respondents may, in advance, intimate the Petitioners of the date of listing of the application before the concerned authority, so as to avoid any further delay. 19. The Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 5/5 5 WP 16260.24.doc Dusane