Allowed¶29

Dadamiya Shahabuddin Bakarkasai v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Sub Divisional Officer Shirol

Bombay HC26 Sept 2025WP/10574/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: compromise decree; partition of agricultural land; mutation of name in revenue record; refusal for want of stamp duty; registration not required; Section 17(2)(vi) Registration Act 1908; proviso Section 46 Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958; Sub Divisional Officer Shirol; Inward No. 431/2023; RCS No. 52 of 2022; Barshi Bar Association PIL No. 88 of 2021; Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade Writ Petition No. 10275 of 2024; Bombay High Court Kolhapur Circuit Bench; writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed; mutation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition succeeds; impugned order dated 21 February 2024 (Inward No. 431/2023) quashed and set aside; necessary mutation entries directed to be made within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. ¶29

Dadamiya Shahabuddin Bakarkasai Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Sub Divisional Officer Shirol — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer could decline mutation of the Petitioner's name in the revenue record based on a compromise decree solely on the ground that stamp duty had not been paid on the decree.

¶23

Court's answer

A compromise decree in respect of agricultural land is not required to be registered, in view of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Such a compromise decree does not require payment of stamp duty on the valuation of the property, but is governed by the proviso to Section 46 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

¶27

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 21 February 2024 passed in Inward No. 431/2023 declining mutation solely for want of stamping is clearly unsustainable.ratio¶28
The Writ Petition succeeds: the impugned order is quashed and set aside, and the necessary entries are to be mutated within two weeks from the date of communication of the order.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mutation of name on compromise decree – refusal by Sub Divisional Officer, Shirol (order dated 21.02.2024 in Inward No. 431/2023) solely on the ground of non-payment of stamp duty held unsustainable. Following Barshi Bar Association v. State of Maharashtra (PIL No. 88 of 2021, dt. 09.03.2023) and Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 10275 of 2024, dt. 21.08.2025), held that a compromise decree in respect of agricultural land is neither required to be registered, being covered by Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, nor liable to stamp duty on the valuation of the property, being governed instead by the proviso to Section 46 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Impugned order quashed and set aside; necessary entries directed to be mutated within two weeks of communication of the order. Coram: M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Judgment signed by Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

¶1

910-Wp-10574-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶5

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.09.29 15:46:19 +0530

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2024

¶7

Dadamiya Shahabuddin Bakarkasai … Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Sub Divisional Officer … Respondent Shirol

¶10

Mr. Somnath Thengal for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

——————

¶12

Coram : M. S. Karnik &

¶13

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.

¶14

Date : September 26, 2025.

¶15

P. C. :

¶16

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶17

2. The Petition impugns the order dated 21^st February, 2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shirol, District-Kolhapur in Inward No. 431/2023, declining the mutation of the Petitioner’s name in the revenue record based on the compromise decree on the ground that the stamp duty has not been paid.

¶18

1 of 3

¶19

Shubham Talle

¶20

910-Wp-10574-2024.doc

¶21

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that pursuant to compromise decree which was passed in RCS No. 52 of 2022 the Petitioner applied for mutating his name in the revenue records. He submits that the compromise decree is neither required to be registered nor to be stamped as held by this Court in the case of Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade vs. the State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 10275 of 2024 dated 21^st August, 2025.

¶22

4. Mr. Kalel, learned AGP would fairly concede that this Court has already taken the view that the compromise decree effectuating partition of an agricultural land does not require registration as well as payment of stamp duty.

¶23

5. We have considered the submissions and the decision of this Court in Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade vs. the State of Maharashtra (supra). The only reason why the Sub-Divisional Officer has refused the mutation of the Petitioner’s name is that the compromise decree has not been stamped. The controversy in the present case is settled by the decision of this Court dated 9^th March, 2023 in the case of Barshi Bar Association Vs. State of Maharashtra in Public Interest Litigation No. 88 of 2021 which was followed in the case of Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade vs. the State of Maharashtra (supra). The consistent view which has been taken is that the compromise decree in respect of agricultural land is not required to

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

Shubham Talle

¶26

910-Wp-10574-2024.doc

¶27

be registered in view of Section 17(2) (vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 and would also not require payment of stamp duty on valuation of the property but would be governed by the proviso to Section 46 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

¶28

6. Considering the well settled position in law the impugned order dated 21^st February, 2024 is passed in Inward No. 431/2023, is clearly unsustainable.

¶29

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Necessary entries be mutated within a period of

¶30

two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶31

8. Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶32

[ Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. ]

¶33

3 of 3

¶34

Shubham Talle

Dadamiya Shahabuddin Bakarkasai v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Sub Divisional Officer Shirol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadamiya Shahabuddin Bakarkasai v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Sub Divisional Officer Shirol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Shankar Bhagat Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. District Collectro Sangli and Ors.

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs Agricultural Products Market Committee, Satara and Ors.

Manohar S/O Narayan Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Ramu Mane and Anr. Vs Moula Babaso Snadi and Anr.

Union Education Society Throu. Its President Nazir Abdul Aziz Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu.Its Principal Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Jame Masjid Trust Nagunsur Thru. Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. M. H. D. and Ors.