Allowed¶24

Bhanudas Mahadu Padale v. Vijay Tukaram Raundal and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2025WP/1336/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 1336/2025, Bombay High Court, Amit Borkar J., 3 April 2025 — mutation entry No.3565 certification declined by Circle Officer order dated 14.09.2005; finality; fresh application dated 18.05.2015 barred; Sections 149, 155, 247 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966; jurisdictional error; quashing of Appellate and Revisional Authority orders; sale deed dated 24.05.2005; revenue record entry; limitation liberty reserved.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority quashed and set aside; no costs; contentions of both sides kept open. ¶24

Bhanudas Mahadu Padale vs Vijay Tukaram Raundal and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority quashed and set aside; no costs; contentions of both sides kept open.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority could lawfully entertain respondent No.1's fresh application dated 18 May 2015 and grant entry of his name in the revenue record when the Circle Officer's order dated 14 September 2005 declining certification of mutation entry No.3565 had attained finality. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Once the Circle Officer's order dated 14 September 2005 declining certification of mutation entry No.3565 attained finality, the only lawful course open to respondent No.1 was to challenge it by an appeal under Section 247 of the Code; a final order cannot be bypassed or re-agitated by filing a fresh application, and any attempt to circumvent the statutory process renders the subsequent proceedings without jurisdiction.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Section 155 of the Code is confined to correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or rectification of mutually agreed mistakes of the revenue authorities; its legislative intent is not to provide an alternate or indirect route for review or reversal of a quasi-judicial order passed under the Code.

¶18

Key takeaways

The impugned order of the Appellate Authority, as affirmed by the Revisional Authority, suffers from a patent error of jurisdiction, being contrary to the provisions of the Code and passed in ignorance of the binding effect of the Circle Officer's order dated 14 September 2005; it cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.ratio¶23
The quashing does not bar respondent No.1 from challenging the order dated 14 September 2005 by appropriate proceedings available under the Code, subject to the law of limitation; contentions of both sides are kept open to be agitated before the appropriate forum as permissible in law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), Writ Petition No.1336 of 2025, decided 3 April 2025: Where the Circle Officer had, by a reasoned order dated 14 September 2005, declined certification of mutation entry No.3565 and that order had attained finality for want of an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to grant the same relief to respondent No.1 on a fresh application dated 18 May 2015. Section 155 of the Code, being confined to correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or mutually agreed mistakes, is not an alternate or indirect route for review or reversal of a quasi-judicial order. The orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority suffered from a patent error of jurisdiction and were quashed and set aside; liberty was left to respondent No.1 to challenge the 2005 order in appropriate proceedings under the Code subject to limitation; contentions of both sides kept open; rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); no costs.

¶1

907-wp1336-2025.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1336 OF 2025

¶5

Bhanudas Mahadu Padale … Petitioner V/s.

¶6

Vijay Tukaram Raundal & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Drupad S. Patil with Mr. Namitkumar S. Pansare for the petitioner.

¶8

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2025.04.03 16:50:44 +0530

¶9

Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Krushi N. Barfiwala and Mr. Shlok Bodas i/by Parinam Law Associates for respondent No.1.

¶10

Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for respondent Nos.4 to 9- State.

¶11

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED : APRIL 3, 2025

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The challenge in the present writ petition arises out of an application dated 18 May 2015 preferred by respondent No.1, whereby a request was made for entering his name in the revenue record on the basis of a sale deed dated 24 May 2005. However, a careful perusal of the record reveals that mutation entry No.3565, corresponding to the said sale transaction, was declined certification by the Circle Officer by passing a specific order dated 14 September 2005. Notably, the said order rejecting certification of mutation entry No.3565 attained finality as respondent No.1 did not assail the same by availing the statutory appellate remedy provided under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). Instead, respondent No.1

¶15

¶16

907-wp1336-2025.doc

¶17

chose to file an independent application on 18 May 2015 seeking the same relief, without addressing the binding effect of the earlier rejection order.

¶18

It is imperative to appreciate the statutory scheme under the Code. Section 149 of the Code contemplates the making of entries in the record of rights based on lawful acquisition of rights, which includes rights acquired by way of sale, gift, inheritance, or otherwise. On the other hand, Section 155 is confined in its scope to correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or, in certain cases, rectification of entries where both parties agree to a mistake committed by the revenue authorities. The legislative intent underlying Section 155 is not to provide an alternate or indirect route for review or reversal of a quasi-judicial order passed under the Code, but only to address inadvertent or mutually agreed errors of record.

¶19

In the backdrop of these provisions, the conduct of respondent No.1 assumes significance. Once the Circle Officer had, by a reasoned order dated 14 September 2005, declined to certify mutation entry No.3565, the only lawful course open to respondent No.1 was to challenge the said order by way of an appeal under Section 247 of the Code. This procedure is not merely procedural but jurisdictional in nature, once an order attains finality, the same cannot be bypassed or re-agitated by filing a fresh application. A quasi-judicial order must be challenged in accordance with the statutory remedies, and any attempt to circumvent the statutory process renders the subsequent proceedings without jurisdiction.

¶20

¶21

907-wp1336-2025.doc

¶22

Despite this settled position, respondent No.1’s independent application was entertained afresh, resulting in the grant of relief by the Appellate Authority, which has been mechanically confirmed by the Revisional Authority. Such an approach is legally untenable and strikes at the root of the jurisdictional discipline expected of revenue authorities acting under the Code. The authorities failed to consider that the foundational basis of the claim stood already rejected and had attained finality in absence of any appeal or review under the scheme of the Code.

¶23

In my considered view, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Revisional Authority suffers from a patent error of jurisdiction, being contrary to the provisions of the Code and in ignorance of the binding effect of the order dated 14 September 2005 passed by the Circle Officer. The same cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, it is clarified that the present adjudication shall not come in the way of respondent No.1, if he is so advised, to challenge the order dated 14 September 2005 by resorting to appropriate proceedings available under the Code, subject to the law of limitation.

¶24

With this clarification, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs.

¶25

It is made clear that contentions of both sides are kept open to be agitated before appropriate forum as are permissible in law.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Bhanudas Mahadu Padale v. Vijay Tukaram Raundal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanudas Mahadu Padale v. Vijay Tukaram Raundal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Dr Hemal Siddharth Mehta vs State of Maharashtra through Office of Public Prosecutor

Nihar Bhalchandra Belosay vs the State of Maharashtra

Nandkumar Gopal Raghuveer and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tata Capital Limited vs Taj Traders

Tulsi Sureshbhai Darji and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Deputy Registrar Cooptive Societies and Anr.

Highland Gardens Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. Throu. Venkata Chalapathi Pasupuleti vs Addl Commissioner Co-Op Societies and Ors.