Ramdas Dnyanoba Buchade vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ramdas Dnyanoba Buchade vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.3 – Sub-divisional Officer to decide the petitioner's objection dated 08.12.2025, submitted in response to the public notice, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order passed by this Court; no opinion expressed on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose name is not reflected in the mutation entry and revenue record, is entitled to notice from the respondent authorities who intend to acquire part of the subject land for road widening. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that an appropriate direction could be issued to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the petitioner's objection in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of by directing respondent No.3 – Sub-divisional Officer to decide the objection dated 08.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner in response to the public notice, strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶18
The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and directed that respondent No.3 – Sub-divisional Officer shall decide the objection without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.; decision dated 27th April, 2026) disposed of a writ petition filed by a claimant to land whose name was not reflected in the mutation entry/revenue record and who apprehended dispossession in view of the authorities' proposal to acquire part of the land for road widening. The Court noted two pending proceedings concerning the petitioner's claimed rights: (i) a proceeding before the Sub-divisional Officer under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 regarding a mutation entry; and (ii) Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2018 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, challenging registered sale deeds executed by the petitioner's vendor. Since the petitioner had already submitted an objection dated 08.12.2025 to the public notice issued by respondent No.3 – Sub-divisional Officer, the Court directed the Sub-divisional Officer to decide that objection strictly in accordance with law, expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits and directing that the decision be made without being influenced by the High Court's order.

22_WP_1006_26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2026

Ramdas Dnyanoba Buchade … Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, & ors. … Respondents

Mr. Sandeep Phatak for petitioner.

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondents – State authorities.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE : 27^th APRIL, 2026

P.C. :

. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for respondents – State authorities.

The petitioner approached this Court and claimed urgency in the matter on 05.03.2026, as notice was earlier issued by an order dated 29.01.2026. It was submitted that the petitioner was apprehending dispossession.

Today when the petition was taken up for consideration, we find that there are two proceedings pending in the context of the rights claimed by the petitioner in the subject land. One pertains to a proceeding pending before the Sub-divisional Officer under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, with regard to a mutation entry. The other proceeding is a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2018 pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, wherein the petitioner has challenged

PRIYAKAMBLI Digitallysigned byPRIYA KAMBLIDate:2026.04.2810:26:06+0530

1/2

22_WP_1006_26.doc

registered sale deeds executed by his vendor in favour of a third party.

It is the case of the petitioner that although his name is not reflected in the mutation entry and the revenue record as on today, but he has sufficient documents in his favour, including registered documents, to demonstrate that he is the owner and in possession of the subject land. On this basis, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to being issued notice by the respondent authorities, as they intend to acquire part of the land for road widening.

During the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice that in response to a public notice issued by respondent No.3 – Subdivisional Officer, the petitioner has submitted his objection on 08.12.2025. This Court is of the opinion that an appropriate direction can be issued to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the objection in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, by directing respondent No.3 – Sub-divisional Officer to decide the objection dated 08.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner in response to the public notice, strictly in accordance with law.

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the respondent No.3 – Sub-divisional Officer shall decide the objection without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Priya Kambli

2/2