Dismissed¶26

Govindrao Ramji Barse and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Mar 2026CA/2860/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 43 years upheld; mutation entry (Mutation Entry No. 571) effected without notice / behind back of respondent no.2; District Superintendent of Land Records, Nanded; appeal maintainability and jurisdiction left open for respondent No. 3 to decide; legal heirs of petitioner No. 2 substituted, abatement set aside; Bombay HC Aurangabad; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application No. 2860 of 2026 allowed in terms of Prayer Clause 'B' (legal heirs of petitioner No. 2 brought on record, delay condoned, abatement set aside); the writ petition itself was dismissed with no order as to costs, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to raise all issues, including jurisdiction, before respondent No. 3. ¶26

Govindrao Ramji Barse and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether to permit the applicants to bring on record the legal heirs of petitioner No. 2, condone the delay and set aside the abatement (Civil Application No. 2860 of 2026). +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

The civil application is allowed in terms of Prayer Clause 'B': the legal heirs of petitioner No. 2 are to be brought on record, with the necessary amendment carried out forthwith.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Because no notice was issued to respondent no.2 at the time the mutation entry was effected (Mutation Entry No. 571 having been taken behind respondent No. 2's back), the impugned order condoning the 43-year delay is appropriate in the eyes of law.

¶25

Key takeaways

The petitioners remain at liberty to raise all issues, including the question of jurisdiction (whether respondent no.3 has the power to entertain the proceeding), and respondent No. 3 shall decide all such issues and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J. — Writ Petition No. 6653 of 2017 (Govindrao Ramji Barse v. State of Maharashtra), decided 11.03.2026, with Civil Application No. 2860 of 2026. By the civil application, permission was granted to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased petitioner No. 2, with condonation of delay and setting aside of abatement (Prayer Clause 'B'), and amendment was directed forthwith. In the writ petition, the petitioners challenged the order dated 08.05.2017 of respondent No. 3, District Superintendent of Land Records, Nanded, condoning a delay of more than 43 years in respondent no.2's filing of appeal. Upholding the condonation on the ground that no notice had been given to respondent no.2 when Mutation Entry No. 571 was recorded and the mutation was effected behind respondent no.2's back, the Court held the impugned order appropriate and dismissed the petition without costs. The petitioners were expressly left at liberty to raise all issues, including whether respondent no.3 had the power/jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, which respondent No. 3 was directed to decide and resolve by an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:11461

¶2

75.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

75 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2860 OF 2026 IN WP/6653/2017

¶5

Govindrao Ramji Barse And Others VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶7

Mr. P. G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for Applicants Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Respondents – State Mr. V. I. Thole, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in WP

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 6653 OF 2017

¶10

Govindrao Ramji Barse And Others VERSUS

¶11

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶12

Mr. P. G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for Applicants Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Respondents – State Mr. V. I. Thole, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶13

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 11.03.2026

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

[I] ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION :

¶16

By this application, the applicants seek permission to bring on record the legal heirs of petitioner No. 2 and also seek condonation of delay and setting aside of the abatement.

¶17

Considering the averments made in the application, the application is allowed in terms of Prayer Clause – ‘B’ . Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶18

¶19

75.odt

¶20

[II] ORDER IN WRIT PETITION :

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶22

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 – District Superintendent of Land Records, Nanded, whereby the application filed by respondent no.2 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal came to be allowed.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings instituted at the instance of respondent no.2 are not maintainable. It is further submitted that the the application has been allowed despite there being the delay of more than 43 years.

¶24

The learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as the learned AGP for respondents – State support the impugned order.

¶25

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the record, I find that respondent No. 3 has condoned the delay of 43 years. While condoning the delay, it has been observed that at the time when Mutation Entry No.571 was recorded, respondent No.2 was not given any notice. It is further observed that the mutation entry was taken behind the back of respondent No.2 and, on that ground, the delay has been condoned. As no notice was issued to the respondent no.2 at the time of effecting mutation entry, the impugned order is appropriate in the eyes of law.

¶26

In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶27

¶28

75.odt

¶29

Needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all issues, including the issue of jurisdiction as to whether respondent no.3 has the power to entertain the proceeding. Respondent No.3 shall decide all such issues, including the issue of jurisdiction, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶30

[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

¶31

Sameer/March-2026

¶32

Govindrao Ramji Barse and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindrao Ramji Barse and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pandurang Bandu Sasane Deceased Umabai Pandurang Sasane and Others vs Rekha Dattatraya Patil and Others

Balaji Bhagwan Parsewar Died through Lrs Sulochanabai and Ors. vs Sk. Vakeel Sk. Ismail and Ors.

Urmilabai Shrirang Alias Shrihari Dharasure through Gpa Suryakant Shrirang Alias Shrihari Dharasure vs Ramkishan Tatyarao Tagare and Others

Shri Shivshankar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another vs the Education Officer Secondary and Others

Arjun Narayan Godbole Deceased through Its Lrs Padminibai Arjun Godbole Died vs Namdev Narayan Godbole and Others

President Chairman Inayat Education Society and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Education Officer Secondary and Another