Dismissed

Smt. Subabai Alias Subhadrabai Tukaram Kate and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Minister and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2024WP/5353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a 1985 mutation entry via appeal under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code; delay condonation was rejected by the SDO, Mawal. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that rights must be decided by the Civil Court where a suit is pending.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Subabai Alias Subhadrabai Tukaram Kate and Anr. Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

40-wp5353-2022.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5353 OF 2022

¶5

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2024.01.15 16:26:57 +0530

¶6

Subabai Alias Subhadrabai
Tukaram Kate & Anr.… Petitioners

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.… Respondents

¶9

Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. Amol Mhatre and Mr. Sameer
P. Mhatre for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. P.G. Sawant,AGP for respondent/State.
Mr. Sandeep Phatak for respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED:JANUARY 15, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶15

2.The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 149
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1860. Mutation Entry
No.3024 effected on 12 June 1985 was challenged by way of
Appeal No.172 of 2015 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Mawal. The
application for condonation of delay of more than 30 years is
rejected by the appellate authority.

¶16

3.According to the petitioners, mutation entry was based on no
document. According to him, the sale deed based on which
mutation entry was effected was not in existence on the date of

¶17

¶18

40-wp5353-2022.doc

¶19

effecting mutation entry nor is in existence as of today.

¶20

4.Record indicates that the petitioners have already
approached Civil Court for establishing the right over the property
in dispute. Therefore, it will be open for the petitioners to raise the
contention that the sale deed based on which mutation entry was
effected was not in existence before the Civil Court. If such
contention is raised, the Civil Court shall decide such contention in
accordance with law. Since the right, title and interest in the
property are not affected by the mutation entry, the rights of the
parties need to be decided by the Civil Court. Hence, no
interference in the impugned is called for.

¶21

5. All contentions raised by both the parties are kept open to be adjudicated by the Civil Court.

¶22

6. Rule stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶23

7. Since the suit is of the year 1995, the Civil Court shall decide the suit within one year from today.

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶25

Smt. Subabai Alias Subhadrabai Tukaram Kate and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Minister and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Subabai Alias Subhadrabai Tukaram Kate and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Minister and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Sanjaykumar Annasaheb Chavan and Ors. Vs Manugraph Employees Association , UNIT-1 and Anr.

Satappa Shankar Patil and Ors. Vs Taluka Cooperative Election Officer Nee Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies (Milk) and Ors.

Ravindra Ramchandra Mangore Vs Taluka Co-Operative Election Officer Nee Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies (Milk) and Ors.

Smt. Neelam Ganesh Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary, Home (State Excise) Dept. and Ors.

Maharashtra Engineering Plastic and General Kamgar Union and Anr. Vs M/S. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Anr.

Baban Trymbak Malode and Anr. Vs Smt. Gangubai Ramdas Malode and Ors.