Disposed¶27

Surendra Bhagwan Shitole v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2025WP/3533/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC writ petition disposed as withdrawn on instructions: petitioner had sought FIR against Circle Officer (Respondent No.3) for effecting mutation entry No. 62685 on a registered sale deed concerning State-allotted writ land; court flagged abuse of process and pressure on a Revenue Officer; reiterated that mutation entries are fiscal only and confer no right, title or interest (Shrikant R. Sankanwar v. Krishna Balu Naukudkar, 2003 (3) BCR 45); complaint dated 29.06.2025 also disposed; costs declined. Keywords: mutation entry, fiscal purpose, Circle Officer, registered sale deed, writ land, abuse of process, withdrawal, costs.

What did the court decide?

The Court did not accede to the learned Addl.PP's request for imposition of heavy costs on the Petitioner, who had submitted that he is a farmer. ¶26

Surendra Bhagwan Shitole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether a First Information Report should be registered against Respondent No.3, the Circle Officer, for effecting a mutation entry on the basis of a registered sale deed. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Restating the settled law of this Court in Shrikant R. Sankanwar and others vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar: a mutation entry is meant only for fiscal purposes, does not decide any right, title or interest, and can be effected on the basis of a registered sale deed.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Court did not accede to the learned Addl.PP's request for imposition of heavy costs on the Petitioner, who had submitted that he is a farmer.

¶26

Key takeaways

The Court observed that the Petitioner has attempted to abuse the process of law.obiter¶10
The complaint dated 29th June 2025 filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.3 shall stand disposed off.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.3533 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction); Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.; decided 24 July 2025. Surendra Bhagwan Shitole sought registration of an FIR against Respondent No.3, the Circle Officer, who had effected mutation entry No. 62685 (25 June 2025) on a registered sale deed dated 1 April 2025 conveying writ land acquired by the State about two decades earlier, allotted in 2007 to Shankar Tanaji Kamble and Sachin Dhondiram Chavan and sold to Pranav Shivaji Harugade. The Court noted the 2007 allotment was already under challenge in Writ Petition Nos. 9991 of 2022 and 1427 of 2025, that no injunction or embargo barred alienation, and observed that the Petitioner had attempted to abuse the process of law. Reiterating its settled law in Shrikant R. Sankanwar and others vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar, 2003 (3) BCR 45, that a mutation entry is for fiscal purposes only and decides no right, title or interest, the Court accepted the Petitioner's withdrawal on instructions: the Petition was disposed of as withdrawn, the Petitioner's complaint dated 29 June 2025 against Respondent No.3 likewise stood disposed of, and the Addl. PP's request for heavy costs was declined (the Petitioner having submitted he is a farmer).

¶1

Trupti

¶2

7-wp-3533-2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3533 OF 2025

¶5

Surendra Bhagwan Shitole … Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr.Laxman Kalel for the Petitioner. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, Addl. PP for the Respondent -State.

¶7

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE : 24^th July, 2025

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

1. This is one rare case wherein we noticed that the Petitioner has

¶10

attempted to abuse the process of law. The writ land (details of which are neither pleaded nor the documents are placed on record) was acquired by the State Government two decades ago. In 2007, the said land was allotted to Shankar Tanaji Kamble and Sachin Dhondiram Chavan. After around 18 years, Shankar Kamble and Sachin Chavan, sold the land to Pranav Shivaji Harugade, vide a registered sale deed dated 1^st April, 2025 and the mutation entry No. 62685 was effected on 25^th June, 2025.

¶11

The allotment of the land to Shankar Kamble and Sachin

¶12

Chavan by the State Government in 2007, is the subject matter of challenge

1/3

Trupti

7-wp-3533-2025

in Writ Petition Nos. 9991 of 2022 and 1427 of 2025. It is conveyed to us by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that this Court has not passed any order imposing an injunction or embargo on Shankar Kamble and Sachin Chavan from alienating the said land.

¶17

It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner desires that a First Information Report be registered against Respondent No.3, the Circle Officer, who has jurisdiction to effect a mutation entry on the basis of a registered sale deed.

¶18

This Court has settled the law in Shrikant R. Sankanwar and others vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar¹ , that a mutation entry is meant only for fiscal purposes and does not decide any right, title or interest. Such an entry can be effected on the basis of a registered sale deed.

¶19

At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits, on instructions, that the Petitioner desires to withdraw this Petition. So also, the complaint filed against Respondent No.3, a copy of which has not been placed on record and the details of which have not been pleaded in the Petition, shall also be withdrawn by the Petitioner, and the same may be treated as disposed off.

1 2003 (3) BCR 45

2/3

Trupti

7-wp-3533-2025

The learned Addl.PP submits that this is a fit case for imposing

¶25

heavy costs on the Petitioner for attempting to abuse the process of law and, in a different way, to exert pressure and threaten a Revenue Officer. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that costs may not be imposed as the Petitioner is a farmer.

¶26