Allowed¶28

Yashwant Maniksa Kshatriya and Ors. v. Bhagwan Vaman Karpe and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Feb 2025WP/1502/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation entry challenge; Section 247 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 appeal; condonation of delay mandatory; appeal entertained without condonation application patently without jurisdiction; Section 257 MLRC revision dismissed; constructive notice under Section 3 Transfer of Property Act 1882; possession column entries sufficient notice; 1969 revenue records; Civil Court decree; Revision Application No.16 of 2002; Writ Petition No.1502 of 2025; Bombay High Court; Amit Borkar J.; 2025.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition, resulting in the impugned orders of the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 being set aside; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶28

Yashwant Maniksa Kshatriya and Ors. vs Bhagwan Vaman… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Authority could lawfully entertain and allow an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 challenging a 1969 mutation entry, when the appeal filed in 1993 carried no application for condonation of delay. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

A party aggrieved seeking to challenge a mutation entry under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code after a lapse of substantial time is mandatorily required to file an application for condonation of delay setting out sufficient cause, and the authority must issue notice and consider whether the cause shown is sufficient before entertaining the appeal on merits.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of an application for condonation of delay and an order condoning it, the Appellate Authority could not have assumed jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits; its exercise of jurisdiction was patently without jurisdiction and illegal, vitiating the entire proceedings.

¶22

Key takeaways

Entries recording names in the possession column of the revenue record are sufficient notice to the world at large and constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; the principle of constructive notice operates against the contesting respondents, rendering their plea of lack of knowledge unavailable in law.ratio¶23
The impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserve to be set aside.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 10th January 2023 passed by respondent No.4 dismissing the petitioners' Revision Application No.16 of 2002 under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioners' names had been recorded in the revenue records in 1969 pursuant to a Civil Court decree; the contesting respondents' appeal under Section 247 of the Code, filed on 21st July 1993 without any application for condonation of delay, was allowed on 29th December 2000. Held: (i) a party challenging a mutation entry under Section 247 after a lapse of substantial time is mandatorily required to file an application for condonation of delay setting out sufficient cause, and the authority must issue notice and consider whether the cause shown is sufficient before entertaining the appeal on merits; (ii) absent such an application and a condonation order, the Appellate Authority could not assume jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, and its exercise of jurisdiction was patently without jurisdiction and illegal, vitiating the entire proceedings; (iii) entries in the possession column of the revenue record are sufficient notice to the world at large and constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, so the plea of lack of knowledge was unavailable to the contesting respondents. Impugned orders set aside; Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶1

38-wp1502-2025.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1502 OF 2025

¶5

VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2025.04.09 18:52:54 +0530

¶6

Yashwant Maniksa Kshatriya & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Bhagwan Vaman Karpe & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Yatin R. Shah and Harsh Shah for respondent No.1. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the State-respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 9, 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 10th January 2023 passed by respondent No.4, thereby dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioners under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

¶12

The case of the petitioners, as set out in the petition, is that pursuant to a decree passed by the Civil Court, their names were duly recorded in the revenue records in the year 1969. However, the contesting respondents preferred an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 on 21st July 1993, assailing the said entries. The said appeal was filed without any

¶13

¶14

38-wp1502-2025.doc

¶15

application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 29th December 2000, allowed the said appeal without adverting to the issue of delay, and in doing so, entered into the validity of the decree passed by the Civil Court, which it was not competent to do in proceedings under Section 247 of the Code.

¶16

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer before the competent authorities under the Code and ultimately filed Revision Application No.16 of 2002. Respondent No.4, by the impugned order, recorded a finding that the decree passed by the Civil Court did not clearly specify the extent of area allotted to each party in partition and there was a discrepancy in the area shown in the name of the contesting respondents. Consequently, the revision application came to be dismissed, giving rise to the present writ petition.

¶17

Learned Advocate for the contesting respondents has submitted that the contesting respondents were not issued any notice of the original proceedings, and were not parties to the Civil Suit decided in 1969. It is submitted that for this reason, upon becoming aware of the entries, they preferred the appeal in the year 1993.

¶18

Upon perusal of the record, it is evident and not in dispute that the Appellate Authority exercised jurisdiction under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It is equally not in dispute that the entries recording the names of the petitioners were effected as far back as in the year 1969. It is a settled

¶19

¶20

38-wp1502-2025.doc

¶21

principle of law that if a party aggrieved seeks to challenge a mutation entry under Section 247 of the Code after a lapse of substantial time, such party is mandatorily required to file an application for condonation of delay, setting out sufficient cause for the delay. It is further incumbent upon the authority to issue notice and to consider whether the cause shown for the delay is sufficient before proceeding to entertain the appeal on merits.

¶22

In the present case, the Appellate Authority entertained and allowed an appeal filed in the year 1993 seeking to challenge an entry made in 1969, without there being any application for condonation of delay and without condoning the delay. In absence of an application for condonation of delay and an order condoning the same, the Appellate Authority could not have assumed jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Authority is thus patently without jurisdiction and illegal, vitiating the entire proceedings.

¶23

The plea raised by the contesting respondents of lack of knowledge of the mutation entries cannot be accepted. The record clearly discloses that the names of the petitioners had been recorded in the possession column of the revenue record. Such entries, reflecting possession, are sufficient notice to the world at large, and constructive notice to any intending purchaser or claimant under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The principle of constructive notice would operate against the contesting respondents, and the plea of lack of knowledge is thus unavailable to them in law. It is well settled that entries in the revenue record, though not conferring title, are presumptive of

¶24

¶25

38-wp1502-2025.doc

¶26

possession and are deemed sufficient to put any person concerned on notice.

¶27

In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserve to be set aside.

¶28

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition.

¶29

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶30

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶31

Yashwant Maniksa Kshatriya and Ors. v. Bhagwan Vaman Karpe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Maniksa Kshatriya and Ors. v. Bhagwan Vaman Karpe 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

Gautam Manikchand Gelada vs Iqbal Anwar Khan and Ors.

Gautam Manikchand Gelada vs Iqbal Anwar Khan and Ors.

Ibrahim Abdul Gani Khambe vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Nitin Laxmidas Dama vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Dairy Development

Smt. Fashibai Ragho Phulore Decd Thru Lhrs Shri. Lahu Ragho Phulore vs Shri. Bala Jagya Medhekar and Ors.

Smt. Fashibai Ragho Phulore Decd Thru Lhr Shri. Lahu Ragho Phulore vs Shri. Bala Jagya Medhekar and Ors.