1 39 CA 118 OF 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 39 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2026 IN WP/14147/2024 VIJAY MAGANLAL AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS MANISHA LALCHAND DADLANI AND OTHERS ... Mr. M. G. Kochar h/f. Mr. B. R. Warma, Advocate for Applicants Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 – State Mr. G. R. Ingole, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/14147/2024 Mr. R. R. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.8 to 17 in WP WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 14147 OF 2024 MANISHA LALCHAND DADLANI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 21st September 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by the decision and order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the the then Hon’ble Minister, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Business Development Department, Mumbai in File No. R.T.S. No. Appeal No. 31-A-23/ Pra. Kra.-55/J-6-A, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2026:BHC-AUG:43038 2 39 CA 118 OF 2026 2. Considering the short controversy in the matter, the Writ Petition is heard for final disposal at the instance of the parties. 3. The sum and substance of the case is that the subject matter land was purchased jointly by the petitioner and respondent Nos.8 to 17 from its erstwhile owner vide a registered sale deed dated 14.09.2005. On the basis of the said sale deed, mutation entry No.39237 came to be recorded. It appears that subsequently development plan was prepared by the parties even accommodating an adjacent land holders, i.e. applicants in Intervention Application No.118 of 2026. Further, as per the contention of the petitioner, respondent Nos.8 to 17 sold out certain portion of that land to other parties. This triggered a dispute between the parties. 4. On the basis of the subsequent sale deeds, some mutation entries particularly mutation entries Nos.39448, 39609, 40088, 40117 and 40360, came to be recorded. The petitioner challenged those entries before the appropriate authorities. The appeal/grievances were turned down by the appellate authority under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for brevity, “MLRC Code”). The 3 39 CA 118 OF 2026 petitioner challenged that order under Section 257 of the MLRC Code before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division. After hearing the parties, the said revision came to be partly allowed with the following directions : "१. अर्जदार यांचे पुनरीक्षण अंशतः मंर्जूर करण्यात येत आहे. २. अपर जिर्जल्हाधिकारी, नंदुरबार यांचेकडील आरटीएस अपील क्र. ०१/ २०१९ मील दिद. ०५/११/ २०२० रोर्जीचा आदेश रद्द करण्यात येत आहे. ३. तहजिसलदार, नंदुरबार यांनी वाद दिमळकतीवरील दिववादिदत फे रफार नोंद क्र. ३९२३७ बाबत पूव3ची परिरस्थि67ती कायम ठेवून, नोंदणीकृ त खरेदीखतानुसार झालेल्या ह6तांतरणाची नोंद वाद दिमळकतीच्या इतर अधिकारात घेण्याची कायवाही करावी. ४. अर्जदार व सामनेवाले यांनी दिववादिदत खरेदीखताच्या वैतेबाबत अ7वा अवैतेबाबत सक्षम दिदवाणी न्यायालयामाफ त दाद मागून घेणे. ५. खचाबाबत आदेश नाहीत. ६. सदर दिनणय सव संबंधितांना 6वतंत्ररीत्या कळदिवण्यात यावा. ७. सदर दिनणय www.eqjcourts.gov.in या संके त67ळावर प्रजिसद्ध करण्यात आलेला आहे." 5. This order was taken up in challenge by respondent Nos.8 to 17 before the Hon’ble Minister. After hearing the parties, the Hon’ble Minister allowed the revision/appeal and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner came to be turned down. As against that the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Heard all the learned Advocates for their respective parties. They stand by their respective pleadings and the stand which is raised by them before the authorities below. 4 39 CA 118 OF 2026 7. Mr. G. R. Ingole, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that since there is no partition between the parties, respondent Nos.8 to 17 were not competent to execute sale deeds of any portion of their joint property. He would submit that the very basis of the controversy is the alleged memorandum of partition which he denies to have executed. He submits that in view of this, the petitioner has already filed Regular Civil Suit No.273 of 2023 before the competent Court and the fate of the mutation entries would be subject to the decision in the civil suit. 8. Mr. R. R. Kazi, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.8 to 17 would submit that in the civil suit, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction is already rejected. He submits that even in the suit is defective for the reason that the petitioner has not challenged the memorandum of partition in the suit. However, ultimately he stands by the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister and the reasons recorded therein. 9. Mr. M. G. Kochar, h/f. Mr. B. R. Warma, learned Advocate for the applicants in Intervention Application submits that they are unnecessarily suffering the disturbance 5 39 CA 118 OF 2026 caused by the plaintiff as also by the respondents on their own land which is not the subject matter of the present controversy. He submits that they are parties to the civil proceedings being the adjacent land holders, and that they same are being unnecessarily affected by the dispute between the parties. The basis of the controversy is the alleged partition/division of the subject matter property purchased jointly by the petitioner and respondent Nos.8 to 17. 10. On the basis of the registered sale deed, mutation entry No.39237 came to be recorded, whereas the subsequent mutation entries are consequent to the execution of the alleged memorandum of partition and, apparently, the suit to crystallize the civil rights of the parties is pending before the competent Civil Court. It is trite law that mutation entries do not confer title and such proceedings are always subject to the decision of the Civil Court. Now, the parties are already before the Civil Court. The respective parties may convince the Civil Court to agitate their civil rights. 11. At this juncture, this Court refrains from commenting on the merits of the controversy raised by the plaintiff, since it is not the subject matter before this Court. Looking to the 6 39 CA 118 OF 2026 recitals of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, I find that the Additional Commissioner has very wisely passed that order maintaining the original mutation entry on one hand in the ownership column as also maintaining the subsequent mutation entries in the other column. In my considered view, there was no reason for the Hon’ble Minister to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. 12. Hence, I pass following order : O R D E R I. The Writ Petition is allowed. II. The decision and order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the the then Hon’ble Minister, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Business Development Department, Mumbai in File No. R.T.S. No. Appeal No. 31-A-23/ Pra. Kra.-55/J-6-A is quashed and set aside. III. The order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision i.e. RTS/Punarnirikshan/301/2021 stands restored. IV. Parties including intervenors are at liberty to agitate their civil rights in the Civil Court in the present pending civil suit. 7 39 CA 118 OF 2026 V. The fate of the mutation entries shall be subject to the decision in the civil suit. VI. The Trial Court is requested to conclude the suit proceedings as early as possible and preferably within a period of ten (10) months from today. VII. Parties undertake to assist the Court for early disposal. VIII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) PRW