Diksha Rane 21 WP 8542 2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8542/2026 Hanumant Raghunath Kadam & Ors. ..PETITIONERS VS Kailas Buasaheb Garade & Anr. ..RESPONDENTS Adv. Namrata S. Bobade a/w. Adv. Sachin Nagarkar for petitioners. Adv. Vaibhav Ugle a/w. Adv. Prashant Mahajan, Adv. Mohan Waghmode for respondent no.1. AGP Hamid Mulla for respondent – State. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026. Per Court : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. A mutation entry carried in favour of the petitioners in the year 1970 based on a sale transaction dated 20th October, 1970, is challenged by the respondent after a delay of more than 50 years. The Sub-Divisional Officer concerned while entertaining the appeal has condoned the delay by observing that there is illegality in making the mutation entry. The delay is exceptionally large in challenging the mutation entry and the appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 2026:BHC-AS:37674 Diksha Rane 21 WP 8542 2026.docx original vendors. Without challenged to the basic documents i.e. the Sale Deed before the Civil Court, it is not permissible for the Appellate authority to entertain a challenge to the mutation entry at a belated stage with delay of 52 years. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that the Sale Deed is of Rs.99/- and not a registered document and under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the registration is only required for sale of beyond Rs.100/-. If there is no valid transfer, the respondents are at liberty to take such steps as are available in law. The mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and the right inter se between the parties can be determined by the Civil Courts and in the event the decree be passed in favour of the respondents, the respondents are at liberty to apply for rectification of the mutation entry. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners have filed the civil suit simplicitor for injunction and the same is pending for consideration. 5. The delay being substantially large, beyond 50 years, the same ought not to have been condoned by the concerned Sub- Divisional Officer, the order passed is exfacie illegal and the same is passed on consideration of the merits of the matter and not for the reasons of delay. 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Diksha Rane 21 WP 8542 2026.docx 6. Considering the same, the order condoning the delay of 53 years is quashed and set aside leaving parties open a such civil remedies as are available in law. If such civil proceedings are filed in the Civil Court, the same be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in the present proceeding. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/09/2026 16:30:20