[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Harishchandra Chahya Patil And Ors. vs Balaram Kashinath Patil And Ors. on 2 February, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:5223
14. CIVIL WP-9653-2024.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9653 OF 2024
Harishchandra Chahya Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Balaram Kashinath Patil & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Rahul Pandit a/w Mr. Premanand Torane, Advocates for
Petitioners
Mr. Milind Parab, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 8 to 10,
12 to 15
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pandit, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.
Parab, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 8 to 10, 12 to
2. Present Writ Petition impugns the order dated 18.12.2023
passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short
"MRT") in Revision proceedings under Section 76 of the Maharashtra
Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'Tenancy Act').
3. Though it is argued by Mr. Pandit that Petitioners have no
grievance whatsoever with respect to the orders passed under the
provisions of the Tenancy Act i.e. order under 32G and certificate
under 32M, their fundamental grievance is with respect to their
respective holdings. Mr. Pandit would vehemently submit that
1 of 4
14. CIVIL WP-9653-2024.odt
holdings of Petitioners rather the holdings coming to the Petitioners
from their predecessor-in-title are primarily much less in area than
what is appearing on the revenue record. In that regard, he would
refer to and rely upon the mutation entry No. 334 dated 04.07.1969
effected while making sub-division of original Gat Nos. 30 to 43
between the parties.
4. The challenge in the Tenancy Appeal filed before the SDO is to
this mutation entry effecting holdings of the respective parties.
However it is filed after a humongous delay of 52 years which stands
condoned. Be that as it may, once the grievance of the parties is not
with respect to challenge to the substantive proceedings and orders
passed under the Tenancy Act and it is only in respect of the actual
holdings of the parties, Petitioners ought to have filed an appropriate
proceeding under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 seeking
survey, measurement and redrawing of the boundaries rather than
challenging mutation entry No. 334 altogether. Such proceedings not
having been effected have been flagged down by the order in Revision
passed by the MRT while maintaining a challenge to the SDO's twin
orders dated 22.09.2022 and 10.10.2022. It is seen that both the
above orders passed by the SDO are in Tenancy Appeal. The action on
behalf of SDO, Pen in having converted the RTS Appeal into a Tenancy
Appeal stands correctly rejected by the learned MRT. When the cause
2 of 4
14. CIVIL WP-9653-2024.odt
of action and the grounds stated in the RTS Appeal filed by the
Petitioners are seen, it is prima facie evident that grievance of
Petitioners is only in respect of their holding and the reliefs / prayer
clauses prayed for are prima facie incongruous with the grounds of
cause of action. The grounds are enumerated in paragraph Nos. 15 to
17 whereas cause of action is enumerated in paragraph No. 18 of the
RTS Appeal. SDO has completely misdirected himself while passing
the order dated 22.09.2022 and the correction order dated 10.10.2022
by converting the RTS Appeal into Tenancy Appeal. Both these orders
are clearly unsustainable.
5. Needless to state that Petitioners before me have also challenged
mutation entry Nos. 610 and 611 both dated 25.06.2014 with respect
to their holdings. By virtue of these mutation entries, effect of death
of family members of Petitioners and their legal heirs has been
recorded. If Petitioners are aggrieved with their holding, it shall be
open to the Petitioners to take out appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law as available to them. While reserving the
aforesaid liberty dismissal of this Writ Petition and upholding of the
impugned order passed by the learned MRT dated 18.12.2023 shall
not come in the way of the Petitioners if Petitioners seek to apply for
survey, measurement and redrawing of boundaries of their respective
3 of 4
14. CIVIL WP-9653-2024.odt
holding in accordance with law. Reserving that liberty to the
Petitioners, Writ Petition stands disposed in the above terms.
6. All contentions of Petitioners with respect to their holdings are
expressly kept open in the appropriate proceedings filed by Petitioners
in accordance with law.
7. Petition is disposed in the above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.02.02
18:03:13 +0530
4 of 4
