Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6818/2026 GAIKWAD CONSTRUCTION THR OWNER SOMANTH DINKAR GAIKWAD ..PETITIONER VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS Adv. Rahul Kadam a/w. Adv. Ashim Tiwari for petitioner. AGP Savina R. Crasto for respondent-State. Adv. Sachin Khandagale for respondent. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026. Per Court : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, with the consent of the parties 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief can be noticed as under:- 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 2026:BHC-AS:38283-DB Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx 4. The original owner of the property one Smt. Gangubai has expired in the year 1935. It is stated that one of the sons of Smt. Gangubai has carried out mutation entries in his favour as the legal heir of Smt. Gangubai in the year 2010. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the legal heir of Smt. Gangubai sold the property to the predecessor- in-title of the petitioner and from him the petitioner has purchased the property in the year 2011. He submits that the respondents claiming to be two sons of Smt. Gangubai has also claimed right over the property. They have also applied for heirship certificate in the year 2014 which is granted in the year 2016 and on the basis of the same has applied for rectification of the mutation entries made in favour of their brother and have challenged subsequent mutation entries which are based on the Sale Deed by brother of the respondents in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, and also through in favour of the petitioner. The mutation entries challenged are: (i) Mutation Entry No.10285 ; (ii) Mutation Entry No.10326 and (iii) Mutation Entry No.10162. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the year 1935 no mutation entry was carried out by the legal heirs of Smt. Gangubai. Subsequently allegedly one of heirs has carried out mutation entry as being only legal heir of Smt. Gangubai 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx and thereafter, the properties were transferred. He also disputes that the present respondents are the brothers of the original heir from whom they have purchased the property. The learned counsel submts that the petitioner has purchased the property by the registered Sale Deed and the mutation entry to that effect is carried out. Learned counsel also submits that the civil suit is filed in the year 2021 by the respondents for partition before the Civil Court and injunction application filed therein is pending consideration before the Civil Court and that no injunction has been granted till date in the matter. He submits that in this fact situation, the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner holding that the mutation entry in favour of the petitioners be not disturbed till the adjudiction by the Civil Court is a correct order and all mutation entries are ultimately subject to the orders passed by the Civil Court. 7. The learned counsel further submits that the Minister in a Revision Petition filed against the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner interfered with the well reasoned order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner and directed cancellation of the mutation entries in favour of the petitioner and his predecessors. Learned counsel submits that he has purchased the property for valuable consideration and by a registered Sale Deed. Learned counsel also submits that 11R land remaining in possession of the petitioner has not been transferred after the order was passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. The inter se rights between the 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx parties are subject to adjudication before the Civil Court and that the mutation entry made in his favour can only be subject to the decision of the Civil Court and the order of the Minister interfering with the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner is errenous and be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has obtained heirship certificate in the year 2016 which was applied in the year 2014 and that fraud was played upon the branch of the two brothers by other brothers and only his mutation entry has been carried out as the legal heir of late Smt. Gangubai and based on the same mutation entry, is carried out in further sale transactions. The Minister having noticed the heirship certificate has recorded the names of the respondents in the mutation entries as legal heirs of Smt. Gangubai and corresponding the entry made in favour of the petitioner is set aside. He submits that the Minister was within his authority to adjudicate whether the original mutation entry carried out was erroneous and the Minister having examined heirship certificate has rectified the mutation entries which were earlier erroneously carried out. 9. In the instant case, this Court, prima facie, find that the brother of the respondents had entered his name in the mutation entry. The status of the respondents is also challenged although legal heirship certificate is in their favour. The brother of the respondents 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx has transferred the property by the Sale Deed and put the petitioners in possession of the property. This fact is disputed by the respondent. 10. Be that as it may, the registered Sale Deed is on record and the civil suit filed for cancellation of the Sale Deed is also pending consideration. The civil suit for partition is also pending consideration and so far as there is no injunction granted by the trial Court in any of the civil proceedings. 11. Considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioners have a registered Sale Deed in their favour and civil proceedings for setting aside the same are pending before the Civil Court, the impugned order of the Hon’ble Minister is erroneous and is set aside and the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 28th April, 2025, is restored, however subject to following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not alter the mutation entries made in their favour till decision of the Civil Court in the injunction application. (ii) In the event, the respondents succeed in the injuction application in the pending civil suit or final orders are passed in favour of the respondents qua the subject land, the respondents would be entitled to apply for rectification of the mutation entries. (iii) Needless to mention that the orders passed by the Civil Court would be binding on the Revenue Authorities. 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Diksha Rane 32 WP 6818 2026.docx 12. With the above observations, the present petition stands disposed of. I have not expressed anything on the merits of the civil proceedings and are to be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made herein. 13. Rule confirmed in above terms. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/09/2026 18:36:58