Shiubai Dashrath Gaikwad Since Decd Thr Her Lrs vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Revenue Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shiubai Dashrath Gaikwad Since Decd Thr Her Lrs vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Revenue Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim restraint: private Respondent Nos. 7/1, 7/2, 7/3 and 7/4 barred from dealing with the subject property until the Sub-Divisional Officer decides the mutation issue; Writ Petition disposed with direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to determine the lis qua the principal mutation entry within twelve weeks, all rights and entitlements expressly kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the State's remand order sending the mutation dispute back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh consideration, the Writ Petition should be disposed so that both parties agitate their grievances before the Competent Authority. +1 more

Court's answer

Present Petition disposed so that both parties can agitate their respective grievances regarding mutation before the Competent Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer) as per the order of remand passed by the State.

Ratio / Principle

Until the Competent Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer) decides the issue of Mutation, private Respondent Nos. 7/1, 7/2, 7/3 and 7/4 shall not deal with the subject property.

Key takeaways

Subject to the Competent Authority's decision in accordance with law, all rights and entitlement of the Petitioner and private Respondent Nos. 7/1 to 7/4 are kept expressly open, without expression of facts or any imprimatur.ratio¶21
Competent Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer) directed to determine the lis between the parties qua the principal mutation entry as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within twelve weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶21
All parties, including the Government Officers, to act on a server copy of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Milind N. Jadhav, J.), Writ Petition No. 857 of 2026 (decision dated April 20, 2026): Legal heirs of deceased petitioner Shiubai Dashrath Gaikwad challenged the position arising from a mutation entry allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, set aside by the first Appellate Authority, and ultimately remanded by the State back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh adjudication. During the pendency, the petitioner's mutation entry had been deleted and substituted with the names of private Respondent Nos. 7/1 to 7/4, raising apprehension that they would deal with the subject property. The Court disposed of the Petition so that both sides could agitate their grievances regarding mutation before the Sub-Divisional Officer as per the State's order of remand; directed that until the Sub-Divisional Officer decides the mutation issue, Respondent Nos. 7/1 to 7/4 shall not deal with the subject property; expressly kept all rights and entitlements of both sides open, without expression of facts or imprimatur; and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to determine the lis qua the principal mutation entry within twelve weeks. All parties, including Government Officers, to act on a server copy of the order.

P6.WP.857.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.857 OF 2026

Shiubai Dashrath Gaikwad (since deceased through legal heirs) .. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

.. Respondents

Mr. Sanjay S. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 20, 2026

P.C.:

1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated 20.04.2026. Perused the praecipe.

2. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioners.

3. Grievance of Petitioner is that Mutation Entry which was allowed by the Competent Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside by first Appellate Authority but in further Appeal before the State, there was remand order made to the Competent Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer once again.

4. Mr. Patil informs the Court that in the meanwhile the Mutation entry standing in the name of Petitioner was deleted and it was substituted by the name of private Respondents i.e. Respondent Nos.7/1, 7/2, 7/3 and 7/4. He would submit that by virtue of said mutation, there is an apprehension that private Respondents would

1 of 3

P6.WP.857.2026.doc

deal with the subject property. He would submit that in so far as issue of remand is concerned, there can be no ambiguity or problem. He is ready to abide by the order of the State so that the Competent Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer can deal with the matter afresh.

5. In that view of the matter, present Petition can be disposed so that both parties can agitate their respective grievances regarding mutation before Competent Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer as per order of remand passed by the State. It is directed that in the meanwhile until the Competent Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer decides the issue of Mutation, the private Respondent Nos.7/1, 7/2, 7/3 and 7/4 shall not deal with the subject property.

6. Needless to state that subject to decision taken by the Competent Authority in accordance with law and all rights and entitlement of Petitioner and private Respondent Respondent Nos.7/1, 7/2, 7/3 and 7/4 kept expressly open and without expression of facts or any imprimatur, present Writ Petition is disposed with direction to the Competent Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer to determine the lis between the parties qua the principal mutation entry as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of twelve weeks from today.

7. All parties including the Government Officers to act on a server copy of this order.

2 of 3

P6.WP.857.2026.doc

8. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

9. Praecipe is disposed.

H. H. SAWANT

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed HARSHADAHANUMANT by HARSHADAHANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2026.04.21 18:23:54 +0530

3 of 3