[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Western Coalfields Ltd. Nagpur ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Department Of ... on 27 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:3595
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR
BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1018 OF 2022
The Western Coalfields Ltd. Nagpur (Subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and
registered under the Companies Act) through its Area General Manager,
Wani area at Post: Tadali (Urja Gram) Tq & Dist. Chandrapur. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue, through
its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
1a. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Camp Area,
Amravati.
2. The Tahsildar (Revenue), Tahsil-Wani District Yavatmal.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Wani Sub Division, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4. Circle Officer (Revenue), Wani area, Tahsil- Wani,
District-Yavatmal.
5. Talathi, Village Shivani (Jahangir), Village No.363,
Tahsil-Wani, District-Yavatmal.
6. Janardhan Maroti Pimpalshende, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator.
7. Rekhabai Janardhan Pimpalshende, Age: Major,
Occ: Cultivator & Household.
8. Rakesh Janardhan Pimpalshende, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator.
9. Omesh Janardhan Pimpalshende Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator.
Nos.6 to 9, R/o: Mungoli village, PO: Sakhara
Tahsil Wani, District-Yavatmal.
10. Abhijeet Bhauji Urkunde, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator,
R/o: Adegaon, Tahsil-Zari Jamani, Dist: Yavatmal.
11. Prajwal Yogesh Pinge, Age: Major, Occ: Education,
R/o: Village Tirvanja, PO-Kacharala, Tahsil-Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
12. Manish Bansi Gadge, Age: Major, Occ: Education,
R/o: Near Telephone Office, Ward no.6, At & PO Ghughus,
Tahsil- Chandrapur, District Chandrapur. RESPONDENTS
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 2 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1020 OF 2022
The Western Coalfields Ltd. Nagpur (subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and
registered under the Companies Act) through its area General Manager,
Wani area at Post: Tadali (Urja Gram) Tq & Dist. Chandrapur. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue, through
its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
1a. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Camp Area,
Amravati.
2. The Tahsildar (Revenue), Tahsil-Wani District Yavatmal.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Wani Sub Division, Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
4. Circle Officer (Revenue), Wani area, Tahsil- Wani,
District-Yavatmal.
5. Talathi, Village Shivani (Jahangir), Village No.363,
Tahsil-Wani, District-Yavatmal.
6. Vanmala Bandu Pattiwar, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist.
7. Priyanka Pranaya Borgamwar, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist.
8. Shrawani Bandu Pattiwar, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist.
9. Arti Bandu Pattiwar, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist.
Nos.6 to 9, R/o: At/PO: Beldarpura, Tahsil Wani, District-Yavatmal.
10. Ankush Sunil Thakre, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o: Village Paramdoha, PO-Chicparam, Tahsil Wani,
Dist: Yavatmal.
11. Suresh Shivanna Aitwar, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o: House no.1-524, Shanti Nagar, Adilabad
(Telangana).
12. Pravin Sudhakar Bobade, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o: Karmana Taluka-Wani, District Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
WITH
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 3 Common Judgment
WRIT PETITION NO. 1021 OF 2022
The Western Coalfields Ltd. Nagpur (subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and
registered under the Companies Act) through its area General Manager,
Wani area at Post: Tadali (Urja Gram) Tq & Dist. Chandrapur. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue, through
its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
1a. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Camp Area,
Amravati.
2. The Tahsildar (Revenue), Tahsil-Wani District Yavatmal.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Wani Sub Division, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4. Circle Officer (Revenue), Wani area, Tahsil- Wani,
District-Yavatmal.
5. Talathi, Village Shivani (Jahangir), Village No.363,
Tahsil-Wani, District-Yavatmal.
6. Kalpana Bhaurao Tajane, Age: 56 years, Occ: Cultivator.
7. Ashwina Bhaurao Tajane, Age: 29 years, Occ: Cultivator.
8. Jaiprakash Suresh Chine, Age: 34 years, Occ: Cultivator
Nos.6 to 8, R/o: Village Mungoli, PO: Sakhara, Kolgaon,
Tahsil Wani, District-Yavatmal.
9. Vijay Anandrao Datarkar, Age: 36 years, Occ: Cultivator,
R/o: Village Yenadi, PO-Shindola, Tahsil Wani,
Dist: Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1022 OF 2022
The Western Coalfields Ltd. Nagpur (subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and
registered under the Companies Act) through its area General Manager,
Wani area at Post: Tadali (Urja Gram) Tq & Dist. Chandrapur. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue, through
its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
1a. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Camp Area,
Amravati.
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 4 Common Judgment
2. The Tahsildar (Revenue), Tahsil-Wani District Yavatmal.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Wani Sub Division, Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
4. Circle Officer (Revenue), Wani area, Tahsil- Wani,
District-Yavatmal.
5. Talathi, Village Shivani (Jahangir), Village No.363,
Tahsil-Wani, District-Yavatmal.
6. Vaishali Vijay Dhume, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist.
7. Pranjali Vijay Dhume, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist.
8. Rajesh Vijay Dhume, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist.
9. Nilesh Vijay Dhume, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist.
Nos.6 to 9, R/o: 43, Pushpa Kunj Society, Arni Road,
Wadgaona, Tahsil Wani, District-Yavatmal.
10. Bhupendra Pandhari Bodhe, Age: Major, Occ: Student,
R/o: Near Jaganath Mandir, Ward No.5 Warora Road,
Gangashettiwar Layout, at & PO Wani, Dist: Yavatmal.
11. Amit Ashok Deshpande, Age: Major, Occ: Service,
R/o: Laxmi Nagar, Nandepera Road, at & PO- Wani,
District Yavatmal.
12. Vivek Hanumantrao Dhumane, Age: Major, Occ: Student,
R/o: Sadashiv Nagar, Post- Chikalgaon, Tahsil- Wani,
District Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. A.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri C.S. Samudra, counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri. N.S. Autkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 5.
Shri. A.A. Dhawas, counsel for the respondent nos.6 to 12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : DECEMBER 10, 2025
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCWED : FEBRUARY 27, 2026
JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent
of the learned counsel for the parties.
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 5 Common Judgment
2. By these petitions, the petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati upholding the orders passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector by which the revenue entries
taken by Talathi and Circle Officer (Revenue) on the basis of the documents
submitted by the parties are confirmed.
3. Since, the controversy involved in all the four petitions is identical and
since same arguments are advanced by the counsels for respective parties, all
the matters are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of
considering the controversy, facts of Writ Petition No.1022 of 2022 are taken as
a lead matter, as the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has advanced
arguments by referring to the facts of this case.
4. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and
the Government of India Undertaking which is involved in mining of coal.
The controversy arises out of issues based on the land acquisition proceedings
initiated at the instance of the petitioner-Company. The petitioner had issued
notifications for acquiring land admeasuring 328 Hectare 72 Are situated at
different villages viz. Kolgaon, Matholi, Mungoli, Sakhra and Shivni of Tahsil
Wani, District Yavatmal. In the entire process, after the notifications were issued
under Sections 4, 7 and 9, the land acquisition officer issued notification under
Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
(for short, 'the Act') dated 20.06.2016. The notifications are relating to the
lands belonging the respondents.
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 6 Common Judgment
5. The respondents nos.6 to 12 in Writ Petition no.1022 of 2022 are the
land owners of land situated at village Shivni (Jahangir), Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal which is in the notified list for the acquisition purpose. It is not in
dispute that the respondents completed transactions relating to sale-deeds and
partition-deeds after issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
and before the issuance of notification under Section 11 of the Act. The
petitioner had challenged the said transactions and consequent mutation entries
before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal vide appeal under Section 247 of the
Maharashtra Land Record Code 1966 (for short, 'the Code'), on the ground that
these transactions were void as Gat nos. 263/1 and 263/2 were already under
the process of acquisition by the petitioner. The proceedings were conducted by
the parties and after perusal of the record and after providing opportunity to the
respective parties, the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal and held that
the transactions and the revenue entries are taken by following due procedure of
law. The petitioner had challenged the said order before Additional Collector
Yavtamal under Section 250 of the Code. The learned Additional Collector
dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
The Petitioner challenged both these orders before the Divisional Commissioner
by way of Revision under Section 257 of the Code and the Divisional
Commissioner also dismissed the revision application and upheld the
orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector.
Feeling aggrieved by all these orders, the petitioner has filed the instant
petition.
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 7 Common Judgment
Facts In Respective Petitions:
6. In Writ Petition No.1018 of 2022, the respondent nos.6 to 12 are the
owners of land bearing survey nos.32/3, 32/4, (32/4-A and 32/4-B) of village
Shivni (Jahangir) Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. On the basis of unregistered
Partition-deed (vatnipatra) dated 22.01.2016, mutation entry no.1345 and on
the basis of sale-deeds dated 04.12.2015 and 18.02.2016, mutation entry
nos.1277 and 1379 are recorded by the Revenue Authorities.
The petitioner has challenged the mutation entries which are taken by the
revenue authorities, based on the documents of unregistered partition-deed and
the sale-deeds with respect to the properties in question.
7. In Writ Petition No.1020 of 2022, the respondent nos.6 to 12 are the
owners of land bearing survey nos.266/5 and 266/5-A, (266/5-A, 266/5-C,
266/5-D) in the village of Shivni (Jahangir) Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. On
the basis of unregistered Partition-deed (vatnipatra) dated 01.01.2016,
mutation entry no.1329 and on the basis of sale-deeds dated 21.08.2015 dated
10.03.2016, mutation entry nos.1261 and 1376 are recorded by the Revenue
Authorities.
The petitioner has challenged the mutation entries which are taken by the
revenue authorities, based on the documents of unregistered partition-deed and
the sale-deeds with respect to the properties in question.
8. In Writ Petition No.1021 of 2022, the respondent nos.6 to 9 are the
owners of land bearing survey nos.104/1A and 104/1B (104/1A/1 and
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 8 Common Judgment
104/1A/2) of the village of Mungoli, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. On the
basis of unregistered Partition deed (vatnipatra) dated 14.01.2015 and on the
basis of sale-deed dated 20.02.2016, mutation entry nos.628 and 643
respectively are recorded by the Revenue Authorities.
The petitioner has challenged the mutation entries which are taken by the
revenue authorities, based on the documents of unregistered partition-deed and
the sale-deeds with respect to the properties in question.
Submissions Advanced:
9. Shri A.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the transactions entered into between the parties need to be declared as
void and illegal and not binding as the same are not genuine and entered with
ulterior motive. The submissions in short are:-
i. The transactions between the respondents are entered by the parties
with an intention to exploit the petitioner though acquisition process is already
initiated by the petitioner.
ii. The respondents have entered into the said transactions with the sole
object of exploiting the provisions of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy,
2012 of Coal India Limited. By artificially fragmenting the land into pieces of up
to two acres and projecting multiple individuals as separate landowners, they
have sought to secure multiple claims for employment from the petitioner.
iii. The revenue entries incorporated by the respondent-Authorities based
on such fictitious transactions are wrong and illegal.
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 9 Common Judgment
iv. The respondent-Authorities erred in passing the impugned orders
without considering the fact that the petitioner has already initiated the land
acquisition process before the transactions had taken place.
v. The mutation entries recorded on the basis of various unregistered
documents are void in nature and fall beyond the purview of the Government
Resolution dated 16.07.2014.
vi. The partitions effected amongst the co-owners on the basis of
unregistered document of partition-deed are illegal and bad in law.
10. By referring to the facts of Writ Petition no.1022 of 2022, he submitted
that in the instant matter, the partition-deed is invalid since it is hit by Section 49
of the Registration Act and therefore the revenue Authorities could not have
acted upon it. By pointing out the chain of transfer of title on the basis of a chart
(at page no.252), he submitted that the partition-deed having been executed
without Bodhe (Respondent no.10) and Deshpande (Respondent no.11) being
joined as parties, could not have been relied upon by the authorities.
He thus submitted that the landowners have partitioned the properties
by unregistered documents of partition/relinquishment-deeds with an intention
to create more survey numbers and secure more jobs in the petitioner-Company.
Since the policy of Western Coalfields Limited provides for one job against the
separate survey number, the petitioner-Company, which is a public sector
undertaking, is subjected to bear more financial burden by forcing it to employ
more persons because of wrongful sub-division of survey numbers. In support of
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 10 Common Judgment
his submissions, he relied upon the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
(Revenue Surveys and Sub-Division of Survey Number) Rules, 1969.
11. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
relied on the following judgments: -
a. Arvind Yashvantrao Deshpande Versus State of Maharashtra & Others
[2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 1039].
b. Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Another Versus Korukonda Annapurna
Sampath Kumar [2022 (15) SCC 475].
c. Yellapuma Maheshwari & Another Versus Buddha Jagadeeshwarao &
Others [2015 (16) SCC 787].
d. Anna & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [2015 SCC Online
Bombay 3855].
e. M. P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur Versus Sky
Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd. & Others [2023 (2) SCC 703].
By relying on the position of law as laid down in the judgments, he
submitted that a document having the effect of creating and taking away the
rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and in absence of
registration, the documents are inadmissible. He submitted that in several cases
including the cases in question, the parties have created documents only with a
malafide intention to reap the benefits of employment and the admissibility of
those documents need to be independently tested.
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 11 Common Judgment
12. Per contra, Shri A.A. Dhawas, learned counsel for the respondents in
respective petitions strongly opposed the petition and raised objection to the
maintainability of petition on the ground of alternate remedy to challenge the
impugned orders. As regards the contentions canvassed by the petitioner, he
submitted as under:-
i. The petitioner-Company has no locus to challenge the revenue entries
which are taken after following due procedure.
ii. The petitioner has not challenged the documents of sale-deeds as well
as partition-deeds before the competent Civil Court and the challenge raised in
these petitions only to the mutation entries is an attempt to intentionally deprive
the respondents of their statutory rights against the land acquisition.
iii. The revenue entries are effected before the issuance of notification
under Section 11 of the Act and as such cannot be questioned by the petitioner.
iv. The rights of the acquiring body are vested only after issuance of
notification under Section 11 of the Act and hence transactions prior to issuance
of Section 11 notification cannot be questioned.
v. As regards the allegations of the petitioner regarding violation of
Government Resolution dated 16.07.2014 for unregistered Partition-deed/
Vatnipatra dated 15.01.2016, he submitted that the Government Resolution
dated 16.07.2014 deals with directions given by the State Government to
Revenue Authorities stating that no demand should be made for registered
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 12 Common Judgment
Vatnipatra for partition in between the Hindu Undivided Families and therefore
the same cannot be relied upon to declare the transactions as invalid.
In support of his submission about alternate remedy learned Assistant
Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance
on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani
Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [2016(5) Mh.L.J. 12] and submitted that
the petitioner has got an alternate remedy to challenge the impugned orders by
way of revision before the State Government.
13. Rival contentions thus fall for my consideration.
Consideration of The Controversy:
14. While considering the rival contentions, it has to be seen that the
petitioner-Company has raised challenge to the orders passed by the Revenue
Authorities effecting mutation entries on the basis of documents submitted by
the respondents with respect to the properties owned by them. The petitioner
has attempted to demonstrate that the documents on the basis of which the
mutation entries are effected suffer from various illegalities and could not have
been considered by the Authorities for recording the mutation entries. Although
the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the position of
law based on the provisions of the Registration Act, it is crucial to note that the
challenge to the mutation entries is raised by the petitioner and not by the
parties to the document. As such, the issue of locus of the petitioner to challenge
the orders passed by the revenue authorities is vital.
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 13 Common Judgment
15. Another important issue is whether the challenge to the mutation
entries at the instance of the petitioner-Company, without challenging the
actual documents, can be entertained by way of instant petitions. The purpose
of challenge, as revealed from the contentions canvassed on behalf of petitioner,
is that the revenue entries are made the basis to claim employment with the
petitioner-Company by showing entitlement of various persons based on the
mutation entries. However, it is crucial to note that the admissibility of the
documents of partition-deed, sale-deeds etc. is not challenged before any
competent civil Court and bare contentions attempting to show inadmissibility
of the documents are sought to be raised. As such, in view of the fact that the
documents are not questioned before any civil Court, the consequential
mutation entries cannot be subjected to challenge.
16. Although the arguments are advanced on the point of inadmissibility of
the document of partition-deed, it is crucial to note that the parties to the
document of partition-deed have not raised any challenge, alleging any kind of
illegality. As such, even if the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act are
considered, in absence of any challenge to the document of partition-deed in
between the members of the Hindu family, the revenue Authorities have not
committed any illegality in recording the mutation entries. Hence, at the
instance of the petitioner-Company, the legality of the said documents need not
be tested.
17. Even the contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner-Company
about the inadmissibility of the documents, however the challenge to the orders
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 14 Common Judgment
passed by the revenue Authorities cannot be entertained at the instance of the
petitioner-Company as it does not have any locus to challenge the documents in
question. Further, since the documents of partition-deed are not challenged
before any civil Court, mere challenge to the mutation entries based on those
documents cannot be entertained.
18. As regards the grievance of the petitioner based on the contention that
the lands are sub-divided to reap the benefits of employment, it has to be noted
that the employment could be granted to those persons who are found eligible
according to the policy. As such, the eligibility is ultimately tested by the
petitioner-Company and if anybody is eligible, he is entitled for employment.
This right of the petitioner-Company to test the eligibility in all respects for
giving employment is not disturbed. Hence, the challenge raised by the
petitioner by making general allegations cannot be entertained.
19. In view of the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, I am of the
considered opinion that the challenge raised by the petitioner to the orders
passed by the revenue Authorities is liable to be rejected for failure of the
petitioner to establish its locus. The contentions canvassed by the petitioner that
the documents are created for the purpose of securing employment with the
petitioner-Company and therefore the mutation entries need to be cancelled
cannot be accepted to the extent of quashing all the orders passed by the
revenue Authorities. The petitioner is entitled to independently point out any
kind of mischief played by any of the respondents while securing employment
by filing independent civil suit or any other proceedings. However, mere
2702WPs1018,1020,1021&1022-22.odt 15 Common Judgment
allegations of irregularity or illegality in the document of partition-deed or
relinquishment-deed are not sufficient to quash all the orders passed by the
revenue Authorities. For all the above mentioned reasons, the instant petitions
fail and are liable to be dismissed.
20. The Writ Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands
discharged.
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/03/2026 18:05:40
