Disposed¶15

Taibai Pandurang Bhagyawant Alias Taibai Laxman Rane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2026WP/1972/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition (Bombay High Court, 16-02-2026, WP 1972/2026, Pitale & Shirsat JJ.); registered release deeds alleged to be fraudulently executed by respondent Nos.6-8; liberty to file civil suit and seek interlocutory reliefs; mutation entries; pending appeal before revenue authorities to be expedited; no opinion on merits; State of Maharashtra respondents; advocates Suraj Naik, Roshan Hule, O.A. Chandurkar, G.R. Raghuwanshi.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn; petitioners given liberty to file a suit before the competent Civil Court regarding the registered release deeds (with liberty to seek urgent interlocutory reliefs therein); revenue authorities directed to endeavour to decide the pending mutation-entry proceedings expeditiously. ¶15

Taibai Pandurang Bhagyawant Alias Taibai Laxman Rane and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners can obtain relief in respect of the registered release deeds allegedly got executed by fraud by respondent Nos.6 to 8 and the mutation entries made thereon. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

An endeavour shall be made by the concerned revenue authorities to decide the pending proceedings in respect of the mutation entries as expeditiously as possible.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court to file suit as regards the registered release deeds.

¶15

Key takeaways

The petitioners are at liberty to move an appropriate application for seeking urgent interlocutory reliefs in the proposed suit.ratio¶15
This Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter.ratio¶18
The Court before which the suit and other proceedings are filed by the petitioners shall proceed strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order passed in this writ petition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.) — Writ Petition No.1972 of 2026, decided February 16, 2026: After counsel for the petitioners stated on instructions that the petitioners would file a suit before the competent Civil Court challenging registered release deeds allegedly got executed by fraud by respondent Nos.6 to 8, the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file such suit and to seek urgent interlocutory reliefs therein. The Court expressly recorded that it expressed no opinion on the merits and that the court seized of the future suit/proceedings shall act strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. The concerned revenue authorities were asked to endeavour to decide the pending proceedings relating to mutation entries (appeal pending) as expeditiously as possible. Pending applications, if any, disposed of accordingly.

¶1

22_WP1972_26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1972 OF 2026

¶5

Taibai Pandurang Bhagyawant @ Taibai Laxman Rane and another … Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Suraj Naik i/b. Mr. Roshan Hule for Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional GP a/w. Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5-State.

¶10

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2026

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. After arguing for some time, Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, makes a statement that the petitioners shall file a suit before the competent Civil Court as regards the registered release deeds, which according to the petitioners were got executed by fraud by respondent Nos.6 to 8.

¶13

It is further submitted that as regards mutation entries made on the strength of such registered documents, the petitioners have already initiated proceedings before the revenue authorities and that an appeal in that context is pending. It is submitted that this Court may consider directing the pending proceedings before the revenue authorities to be decided at the earliest.

¶14

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate:2026.02.1617:27:10 +0530

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court to file suit as indicated hereinabove. The petitioners would obviously be at liberty to move an appropriate application for seeking urgent interlocutory reliefs in such

¶16

1/2

¶17

22_WP1972_26.doc

¶18

proposed suit. This Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter and the Court before which such a suit and other proceedings are filed by the petitioners, shall proceed strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order passed in this writ petition.

¶19

As regards the pending proceedings before the revenue authorities in respect of the mutation entries, an endeavour shall be made by the concerned revenue authorities to decide the pending proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶22

Minal Parab

¶23

2/2

Taibai Pandurang Bhagyawant Alias Taibai Laxman Rane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taibai Pandurang Bhagyawant Alias Taibai Laxman Rane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Sarubai Sahadu Wadghule vs the Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Pune and Ors.

Narayan Gajanan Thakur vs the City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Ors.

Rudrapratap Ramsudarshan Tripathi vs Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs the Collector Mumbai Suburban District and Ors.

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra the the Honble District Magistrate, Pune and Ors.

Irfan Gulam Ahmed Patel and Ors. vs State of Maharashtrathr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.