Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8208 (BOM)

INDURI FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED v. NAKUBAI BARKU VAJE SINCE DECD. THR HEIRS

WP/9441/2026 · 2026-09-07

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Gitalaxmi 26-WP-9441-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9441 OF 2026 INDURI FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED ...PETITIONER Versus NAKUBAI BARKU VAJE SINCE DECD. THROUGH HEIRS AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Birendra Saraf, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Omar Ahmad, Mr. Vikram Shah, Ms. Gauri Joshi & Mr. Tuhin Dubey i/b Ganesh & Co., learned counsels for the Petitioner. Mr. Divyesh K. Jain, learned counsel for the Respondents. S. L. Babar, learned AGP for the State-Respondent. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026. Per Court : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Mr. Birendra Saraf, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that the mutation entry made in the year 1966 has been challenged by the Respondents in the year 2025, i.e. after a period of 58 years, under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“MLRC”). Page 1 of 4 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Gitalaxmi 26-WP-9441-2026.docx 3. In the appeal preferred by the Respondents, an application for condonation of delay of 58 years has been filed, and the said application was under consideration. The arguments before the Appellate authority were restricted to the reasons of condonation of delay. It is the case of Petitioner that the delay of 58 years should not be condoned in challenging the mutation entry. 4. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that the SDO has decided the appeal by exercising powers under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, (“the Act”) and the mutation entry in favour of the Petitioner has been set aside. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that there was no application under the Act, so also suo moto powers under the Act cannot be exercised without notice and enquiry. The Petitioner was also not put to notice of exercise of the powers under the Act. The proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (“SDO”) related to the mutation entry entered in the year 1966 and the application for condonation of delay was under consideration. 5. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that while considering the application for condonation of delay, there was no occasion for the SDO to exercise powers under the Act. 6. Per contra, Mr. Divyesh Jain, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the SDO has jurisdiction to exercise 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Gitalaxmi 26-WP-9441-2026.docx powers under the provisions of Act, particularly under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and such powers can be exercised suo moto or an application and that the authority concerned has rightly exercised the powers within 30 years from the year 2004. 7. Having perused the records, it appears that the application is filed challenging the mutation entry of the year 1966 and the proceedings before the SDO is related to the condonation of delay alone. The arguments canvassed by the parties are also related only to the condonation of delay. There is no application for exercise of powers under the provisions of Act. As such, the concerned authority could not have never travelled beyond the application invoking the same, without appropriate notice to the Petitioner. The concerned authority could have either condoned the delay on its merits or dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The SDO has not issued any notice under the Act. 8. Considering the same, this Court finds that the SDO has exceeded his jurisdiction and pass the impugned order and accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned authority. The authority concerned to consider the arguments on delay condonation application and pass the appropriate orders thereon. In the event the SDO condones the delay, he may admit the appeal for hearing. Page 3 of 4 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Gitalaxmi 26-WP-9441-2026.docx 9. With these observations, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2026.09.12 13:22:27 +0530