Bombay High Court
Arun Sampatrao Patil vs Smt. Parvati Mahadeo Bamugade ... on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
908-WP-1580-22.doc
BDP-SPS-TAC
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PANDIT
Date: 2022.07.02
15:13:13 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 1580 OF 2022
Arun Sampatrao Patil ..... Petitioner.
V/s
Smt. Parvati Mahadeo Bamugade
since deceased through legal heirs
1a. Smt. Sarita Tanaji Sane and Ors. ...... Respondents.
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Janhavee Joshi i/b Mohan B. Jadhav for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe for Respondent Nos.1(d) and 2.
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: JUNE 30, 2022
P.C.:-
1] The order impugned is dated 17/11/2021 passed by the State
Government whereby order dated 6/7/2020 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Konkan Division came to be set aside and the order
dated 30/11/2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) came
to be restored whereby mutation entry in the name of Respondents
being Mutation Entry No.ME 1277 came to be restored.
2] Contentions of Mr. Kanade, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
are, Petitioner is a party to the partition suit at the behest of
908-WP-1580-22.doc
Respondents, which is already pending in which Respondents have
filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. He would urge
that Mutation Entry of 2007 is upset in 2015 by SDO without there
being any plea for condonation of delay. He would urge that the issue
is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of
Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur and Ors vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur
and Ors. delivered in Writ Petition No. 2658/2018 on 10/2/2021.
He has specifically relied on the findings recorded in paras 14 and 15
of the aforesaid judgment.
3] Counsel for the Respondents, while resisting aforesaid claim
would urge that proceedings before revenue authority are always
subject to outcome of the civil proceedings. According to him, till
injunction application of the Respondent is decided, existing position
can be maintained and parties can be relegated to the out come of the
aforesaid civil suit. In the alternative, his submissions are, matter can
be remanded for giving opportunity to the Respondents to take out
proceedings for condonation of delay.
4] I have appreciated the said submissions.
908-WP-1580-22.doc
5] Fact remains that unless application for condonation of delay is
accompanied with main proceedings, revenue authorities particularly
SDO will not get jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said
proceedings which is in relation to upsetting Mutation Entry which
was in favour of the Petitioner herein. As a sequel of above and
rightly so, Additional Commissioner followed law from the judgment
of this Court in the matter of Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur cited supra.
Fact remains that the State Government while passing the order
impugned has failed to consider aforesaid issue and has proceeded to
set aside the order of Additional Commissioner without considering
the issue as regards jurisdiction of SDO to entertain the proceedings,
as it is already observed that in absence of order condoning the delay
the authority won't get jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings.
6] In that view of the matter, order impugned dated 17/11/2021 is
hereby quashed and set aside. RTS Appeal
No.2821/PK/05/J-4A/2020 stands rejected for the reasons recorded
hereinabove.
908-WP-1580-22.doc
7] In view of submissions made by the Counsel for the
Respondents, needless to clarify that application of the Respondents
for grant of temporary injunction-Exhibit-5 in the pending suit for
partition and separate possession be decided on its own merit without
being influenced by the orders passed by this Court in the present
Petition.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )
