Bombay High Court
Priyanka Prakash Pote And Ors vs Gulshankumar Nanakchand Mehta (Since ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: N.J.Jamadar
Bench: N.J.Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:36209
904 wp 5681 of 2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5681 OF 2015
Gulshankumar Nanakchand Mehta
(deceased) through heirs
Mukesh Gulshankumar Mehta and Anr. ... Petitioners
versus
Mehmood Hasan Haji Mohammad Kadri
and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.15274 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2082 OF 2024
Mr. S.M.Gorwadkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.H.Gangal i/by Mr. Niranjan
Mogre for Petitioners.
Mr. Narendra Walawalkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suresh Sabrad, Mr.
Jeetendra Sachhdev, Ms. Neha Zanje, Mr. Aniket Gharat, Ms. Eshwaree
Kudakar i/by JS Legal for Respondent Nos.3 to 10.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 20 AUGUST 2025
P.C.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties,
heard finally.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the
legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 21 October 2014 passed
by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Revision
SSP 1/7
904 wp 5681 of 2015.doc
Application No.460 of 2012, whereby the Additional Divisional Commissioner
condoned the delay in preferring the Revision Application and set aside the
judgment and order dated 18 September 2010 passed by the Additional
Collector, Raigad-Alibag in Appeal No.170 of 2010 and thereby cancelled the
mutation entry No.4233 in respect of the subject land admeasuring 2200 sq.
mtrs., out of the land bearing Survey No.159/2 admeasuring 1H 57.3 Ares at
Village Shirdhon, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad.
4. Parmanand Oberoi had purchased the land bearing Survey No.159/2
under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948, on 18 October 1980. On 2 March 1995, Gulshankumar Mehta, the
Petitioners father purchased 22 Are land out of the said Survey No.159/2
under a registered Sale Deed. The name of the Petitioners father was,
however, not recorded in the record of rights of the subject land.
5. In the meanwhile, Tahasildar, Panvel on Complaint No.13 of 2006 filed
by the Respondent No.1 challenging the Mutation Entry No.3676, cancelled
the said mutation entry. Though the Petitioner's father had filed an
Intervention Application along with a copy of the registered sale deed, the
Tahasildar did not order mutation of the name of the Petitioner's father. Thus,
the Petitioner's father filed RTS Appeal No.192 of 2008 before the Sub-
Divisional Officer. By an order dated 15 October 2009, the said appeal came
to be dismissed.
SSP 2/7
904 wp 5681 of 2015.doc
6. The predecessor in title of the Petitioners filed Second Appeal being
Appeal No.170 of 2010 before the Additional Collector, Raigad. By a
judgment and order dated 18 September 2010, the Additional Collector
allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and order in Appeal
No.192 of 2008, and directed that the name of the predecessor in title of the
Petitioners be mutated to the record of rights of the subject land pursuant to
the registered sale deed dated 2 March 1995.
7. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 challenged the aforesaid order of the
Additional Collector before the Additional Divisional Commissioner in Revision
Application No.460 of 2012. By the impugned order, the Additional Divisional
Commissioner was persuaded to allow the Revision Application observing,
inter alia, that the subject land was purchased by Respondent Nos.3 to 10
under the registered sale deed dated 5 March 2009 and their names were
already mutated to the record of rights of the subject land, and, yet, the
Additional Collector allowed the appeal without impleading Respondent Nos.3
to 10 as the parties to the said appeal and providing an opportunity of
hearing. Secondly, the sale of the subject land was in contravention of the
provisions of said Act, 1948 as the permission of the Competent Authority was
not obtained.
8. I have heard Mr. Gorwadkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioners and Mr. Walawalkar, the learned Senior Advocate for Respondent
SSP 3/7
904 wp 5681 of 2015.doc
Nos.3 to 10. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I
have perused the material on record.
9. An endeavour was made by Mr. Gorwadkar to urge that the Additional
Divisional Commissioner exceeded the remit of his jurisdiction in examining
the legality and validity of the registered instrument, under which the
Petitioners father had acquired the subject land. The Authorities under the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 are not competent to examine the
legality and validity of the registered instrument.
10. Mr. Walawalkar, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 10
submitted that the transaction was in contravention of the provisions of the
Act, 1948, was one of the reasons which weighed with the Additional
Divisional Commissioner. The principal reason was the failure on the part of
the Additional Collector to adhere to the principles of natural justice as the
Additional Collector had allowed the appeal without providing an opportunity
of hearing to the Respondent Nos.3 to 10 who had purchased the subject
land after obtaining the permission of the Competent Authority and whose
names were also mutated to the record of rights of the subject land.
11. In the wake of aforesaid submission, Mr. Gorwadkar urged that, in that
case, the Additional Divisional Commissioner ought to have remitted the
matter back to the Additional Collector.
12. Mr. Walawalkar submitted that he is not averse to the aforesaid
SSP 4/7
904 wp 5681 of 2015.doc
proposition.
13. From the perusal of the impugned order, it becomes evident that the
failure on the part of the Additional Collector to give an opportunity of hearing
to Respondent Nos.3 to 10, whose names were already mutated to the record
of rights of the suit land, primarily weighed with the Additional Divisional
Commissioner. It was incumbent upon the Petitioners to implead Respondent
Nos.3 to 10 as party Respondents to the said appeal and also upon the
Additional Collector to provide an efficacious opportunity of hearing to
Respondent Nos.3 to 10. The Additional Divisional Commissioner was,
therefore, justified in interfering with the order passed by the Additional
Collector in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and
fundamental principles of judicial process.
14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, without delving into the merits of the
matter, this Court is of the view that Appeal No.170 of 2010 is required to be
remitted back to the Additional Collector, Raigad-Alibag for afresh
determination after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties,
including Respondent Nos.3 to 10. As the said appeal was instituted in the
year 2010, certain directions for expeditious hearing and determination of the
said appeal are also required to be issued.
15. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
904 wp 5681 of 2015.doc
(i) The Writ Petition stands partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order stands modified as under :
(a) Revision Application No.460 of 2012 stands partly allowed.
(b) The order passed by the Additional Collector in Appeal
No.170 of 2010 stands quashed and set aside.
(c) Appeal No.170 of 2010 stands restored to the file of the
District Collector, Raigad-Alibag.
(d) District Collector shall decide Appeal No.170 of 2010 afresh
after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
(e) The Petitioners - appellants in Appeal No.170 of 2010 shall
amend the appeal memo to implead Respondent Nos.3 to 10 as party
Respondents thereto.
(f) The parties, including Respondent Nos.3 to 10, shall
appear before the District Collector on 9 September 2025.
(g) The District Collector, Raigad-Alibag shall make an
endeavour to hear and decide Appeal No.170 of 2010 as expeditiously as
possible and, preferably, within a period of six months from the scheduled
date for the appearance of the parties.
(iii) It is clarified that all contentions of all the parties are kept open for
consideration, and, this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter.
(iv) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
904 wp 5681 of 2015.doc
(iv) All Interim Applications stand disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2025 20:33:30
