Dahisar Shree Avdhoot Chs Ltd vs State Of Maharshatra Through Hon Ble Revenue Minister

CNR No : HCBM020135192025

2026:BHC-OS:22535
TRUPTI
SADANAND
BAMNE
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI SADANAND
BAMNE
Date: 2026.10.16
11:57:05 +0530
Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2631 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.14294 OF 2026
Dahisar Shree Avdhoot CHS. Ltd. ]
A Society registered under ]
Maharashtra Co-op Society Act, 1960 ]
Situated at Chatrapati Shivaji Marg, ]
Dahisar (East) Mumbai – 400068. ]
Through its Chairman ]
Shri. Suryakant P. Zagade. ] … Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra through ]
Hon’ble Revenue Minister, ]
Having address at Mantralaya, ]
Madama Kama Road, ]
Mumbai. ]
2. Devanand Govind Patil ]
an adult Occ. Service ]
Residing at village Raigaon, Post- ]
Bhayandar, Tal. & Dist. Thane ]
401101. ]
3. Dharneshwar Govind Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
Residing at village Raigaon, Post- ]
Bhayandar, Tal. & Dist. Thane ]
401101. ]
4. Latabai Sharad Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Housewife ]
5. Kalpesh Sharad Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
1/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

residing at village Raigaon, Post- ]
Bhayandar, Tal & Dist. Thane ]
401101 ]
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 legal heirs of ]
Sharad Govind Patil (since deceased) ]
6. Vikas Hareshwar Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
7. Milind Hareshwar Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
8. Reshma Narendra Mhatre ]
an adult, Occ. Housewife ]
Respondent Nos.6 to 8 being legal ]
heirs of Jayashree Govind Patil alias ]
Jayashree Hareshwar Patil residing at ]
village Raigaon, Post-Bhayandar, Tal. ]
& Dist. Thane – 401101. ]
9. Mukesh Parshuram Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
10. Yogesh Parshuram Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
Both residing at Gavrai Pada, Near ]
bungalow of adv. Ashok Patil, Vasai, ]
Palghar – 401208. ]
11. Harsha Rohit Salvi ]
an adult, Occ. Housewife ]
73- Tarangan Bangalow, ]
Kailas Vasai, Govind Patil Marg, ]
Sasunavghar, Vasai (East), Palghar- ]
401208. ]
Respondent Nos.9 to 11 being legal ]
heirs of Nanda Govind Patil alias ]
Nanda Parshuram Patil. ]
12. Sunanda Bhanudas Patil alias Sunanda ]
an adult, Occ. Housewife ]
Govind Patil having her residential ]
2/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

address at village Raigaon, Post. ]
Bhayandar, Tal. & Dist. Thane ]
Thane- 401101. ]
13. Rajesh Laxman Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
14. Meena Laxman Patil alias Meenabai ]
Ramesh Raut ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
15. Shashikala Laxman Patil alias ]
Shashikala Chintaman Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Service ]
16. Rohini Laxman Patil alias Rohini ]
Bhanudas Patil ]
an adult, Occ. Housewife ]
17. Nalini Laxman Patil Nalini Gajanan ]
Bhoir ]
an adult, Occ. Housewife ]
18. Hemlata Laxman Patil alias Priyanka ]
Pradeep Mhatre ]
an adult, Occ. Housewife ]
Respondent Nos.13 to 18 being legal ]
heirs of Laxman Ramchandra Patil and ]
all having residential address at village ]
Raigaon, Post-Bhayandar, Tal. & Dist. ]
Thane-401101. ]
19. Sub-Divisional Officer ]
Having address at New ]
Administrative Building, Near Chetna ]
College, Bandra (E), ]
Mumbai-400052. ] … Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Devansh Shah and Ms. Roshni
Naik i/b. Roshni Naik for the Petitioner.
3/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

Mr. Dipesh Siroya, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 19-State.
Mr. Bhavesh Joshi i/by Adv. Prasad Apte for Respondent Nos.2 to 18.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 28 August, 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 16 October, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
1. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner seeks a direction to quash and set aside the
th
Order dated 5 September, 2024 passed by Respondent No.1
(impugned Order). Additionally, they also seek a direction to
Respondent No.1 to dispose of the pending Revision Application
within a period of three months, having regard to Section 255(4) of
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘Land Revenue Code’).
2. The Petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society
registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960,
th
bearing Registration No.BOM/HSG/4832 of 1976 dated 5 May 1976.
The Petitioner – Society consist of 289 members residing in five
buildings of four storeys each. The Respondent No.1, in exercise of its
powers under Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code, passed an ex-
th
parte Order dated 5 September, 2024 without following due process
of law and principle of natural justice and stayed the proceedings
before Respondent No.19 being Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).
4/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

Brief Facts :
3. Govind and Laxman (since deceased) were owners of
agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 61/12 admeasuring 834.60 sq.
meters corresponding to CTS No.1320 and Survey No.61/14
admeasuring 126.60 sq. meters corresponding to CTS No.1334 (‘the
writ property’).
4. In 1973, Govind and Laxman had approached the original
promoters being (i) Vasantrao Narayan Verlekar. (ii) Shubhada
Suresh Borkar and (iii) Nirmala Vasant Desai, for the sale of the writ
th
property and entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 11 May,
st
1973. The original owners obtained an Order dated 1 March, 1979
under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948
for sale of the agricultural lands in favour of the Society. They also
th
obtained an Order dated 13 February 1978, under Section 20 of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (‘ULC Act’)
exempting the writ property from the Application of Section III of the
st
ULC Act. A covering letter dated 21 August, 1978 was also obtained
by the original owners. After completing all compliances, namely,
th
publishing an advertisement dated 19 January, 1979 and
publication of notice in Marathi newspaper inviting objections and
claims in respect of the sale of the writ property, the original owners,
Govind and Laxman sold, transferred, conveyed their rights, title
5/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

and interest in the writ property in favour of the Petitioner – Society
th
by virtue of Sale Deed dated 12 April 1979, registered with Sub-
Registrar of Assurances as document No. Bom/S/1068/1979 (‘the
Sale Deed’).
5. In addition to the Application made by the Petitioner -
Society, the original owners, Govind and Laxman, addressed letters
to the City Survey Office, Mumbai, for mutating the name of the
Society in the revenue records. The Petitioner - Society applied to the
Competent Authority for obtaining non-agricultural permission
th
which was granted by an Order dated 27 July, 1979 by the learned
Additional Deputy Collector in favour of the Petitioner – Society.
6. After receiving all permissions from the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘MCGM’), the Petitioner – Society
constructed five buildings of four storeys each, comprising of 15
wings occupied by 289 flats/tenements owners. The Society received
a full Occupation Certificate for all the buildings on the property on
th
8 April, 1981. Since then, it has been paying non-agricultural taxes,
property taxes, water taxes etc. to the concerned Authorities.
7. In May 2017, the Society initiated the process of
redevelopment, so as to avoid recurring alterations/ modifications to
the old buildings, and in the interest and for safety of all the
members. In order to obtain an updated revenue record as well as
6/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

title related records, the Society applied to the Revenue Department
in 2018. On receiving the record, the Petitioner was shocked and
surprised to find that the names of the legal heirs of Govind had been
mutated on the 7/12 extract of the writ property. The relevant
st
mutation entry bearing No.6910 dated 21 September 1990, was
procured through an Application under the Right to Information Act,
2005. The Petitioner – Society then challenged the mutation entry
st
No.6910 dated 21 September 1990, before the SDO, by an
Application bearing No.19 of 2019, together with an Application for
th
condonation of delay, in February 2019. By Order dated 27 July
2023, the SDO condoned the delay and proceeded to hear of the
matter. Laxman, one of the sellers and a party to the Sale Deed, was
also made a party to the proceeding before the SDO. Neither Laxman,
nor the legal heirs of Govind denied the execution of the Sale Deed
and transfer of the writ property in favor of the Petitioner – Society.
The matter was listed before the SDO on various occasions for the
contesting Respondents to file their reply, and on each occasion they
sought time to file their say.
th
8. The Petitioner – Society received a notice dated 19
September, 2024 from the Office of Respondent No. 1 informing it
th
that a hearing was scheduled on 30 September, 2024. It is pertinent
to note that the said notice did not contain any particulars of the
7/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

impugned Order. Thereafter, the Petitioner – Society received a
th
second notice dated 26 September 2024, informing it that the
th
hearing of 30 September, 2024 stood cancelled and had been
th
rescheduled for 8 October 2024. It is pertinent to note that even the
second notice was silent regarding the impugned Order.
nd
9. On 2 January 2025, for the first time, the Advocate for
the contesting Respondents disclosed to the Petitioner about the ex
th
parte Order dated 5 September, 2024 passed in their favour. As the
impugned Order had not been placed before the learned SDO, he
th
adjourned the matter to 10 January 2025, and directed the
Advocate to submit a copy of it. The impugned Order was neither
served on the SDO nor the Petitioner – Society and therefore, the
Petitioner – Society addressed a letter through its Advocate
requesting for a copy thereof along with a copy of the Revision
Application.
th
10. On 14 January 2025, the contesting Respondents
served a copy of the impugned Order along with the Revision
Application/Appeal No.2624/3353/Pr.Kr. 54/J-3 of 2024. Despite an
Application made immediately to the Office of Respondent No.1 i.e. on
th
20 January 2025, for a certified copy of the Roznama and the
impugned Order, the same was received by the Petitioner - Society
th
only after a period of 4 months i.e. on 9 April 2025. A perusal of the
8/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

Roznama indicates that one, Kalpesh Sharad Patil had orally argued
th
the matter on 20 August, 2024 and the matter was reserved for
th
orders. The Roznama dated 20 August, 2024 revealed that the
Revision Application was filed by Advocate one Narottam Thakur,
but oral arguments were advanced by the one of the parties in
person. The Roznama, however, does not record the absence of other
parties to the proceedings, most importantly, the Petitioner –
Society. A perusal of the Revision Application and the impugned
Order indicates that the contesting Respondents had failed to make
out any substantial justification for approaching the Respondent No.1
in revision against the SDO Order after a delay of one year. Neither
the Revision Application nor the impugned Order demonstrates any
urgency or reason for granting an ex-parte stay for an indefinite
duration on proceedings before the SDO. It is in these circumstances,
the Petitioner was compelled to file the Petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India before this Court.
11. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
narrated the afore-stated facts and submitted that the Petition be
made absolute with appropriate directions.
12. Mr. Prasad Apte, learned Advocate appearing for
th
Respondent Nos.2 to 18, relied upon the Affidavit-in-reply dated 19
December, 2025 to oppose the Writ Petition. The learned AGP
9/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 19 relied upon the Affidavit of
th
Mr. Prasad Dhage, Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai dated 28
January, 2026 and submitted to the Orders of the Court.
13. I have heard the learned Advocates and perused all
papers on record.
14. After hearing the parties at length and after deliberations
in the Court with the respective Advocates, the Respondent Nos. 2 to
18 acceded to the setting aside of the impugned Order by consent.
The Respondent No.19 was directed to complete the hearing within a
th
period of one week from the date of this Court's Order i.e. 30 June,
2026. The above Petition accordingly stands disposed of to that
extent, and the immediate concerns of the Petitioner have been
redressed.
15. However, it is rather disturbing to note that the
Petitioner – Society had to initiate several proceedings before various
authorities, including this Court, over a period of more than nine
years in order to undertake a lawful redevelopment. This difficulty
arose only because the concerned authorities did not mutate the
name of the Petitioner-Society in their records, although the
Petitioner-Society had applied immediately after the registration of
the Sale Deed, as far back as in 1979. The fault lies entirely with the
concerned Authorities whose lapse has dragged the Petitioner –
10/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

Society into litigation.
16. In my view, this litigation could easily have been avoided.
It was occasioned only by the failure of the concerned Authorities to
discharge their bounden duty to record the name of the Petitioner in
the Revenue Records, for over a decade after the transfer of the writ
property by a registered Sale Deed. This lapse on the part of the
concerned Authorities is wholly unjustifiable and unpardonable. It
has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner – Society and delayed
the redevelopment process by over seven years, for absolutely no
fault on their part.
17. In my view, only the concerned Authorities and its
Officers are to be blamed for the considerable loss, injury and
prejudice caused to the Petitioner – Society, which comprises of
around 289 members and their families.
18. Thus, a simplicitor disposal of the present Petition would
not be justified merely because the Respondent Nos.2 to 18 have
consented to set aside the impugned Order of Respondent No.1.
According to me, it leaves an important question unanswered,
namely, what is the process by which entries are to be made in all the
relevant records, of all concerned Authorities, after a transfer of
property between parties by a duly registered instrument.
19. This Court has noted a series of such Petitions, filed
11/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

because the process of mutation is being abused by several
unscrupulous legal heirs of land-owners. Usually these are properties
on which the slums have cropped up and are due for redevelopment.
It is observed that although the original landowners would have
received the entire consideration on sale of their property, their legal
heirs venture into this exercise, which ex facie amount to an elite
form of extortion. These unscrupulous legal heirs have their names
mutated in the 7/12 extracts because their predecessors’ names
have not been substituted by the names of those who purchased the
property by a registered Sale Deed in these records. This is the core
point of mischief. The concerned Authorities who receive the
Applications from such legal heirs fail in their duty, the motive
behind such conduct is not difficult to discern to verify from the
registering authorities whether the said property has been sold.
Because once a property has been sold, it becomes a matter of record
and such registration can be set aside only by seeking its
cancellation, through appropriate proceedings against the Claimants
of the title to the said property. It is settled law that such an
adjudication is impermissible by any of the concerned Authorities
maintaining the records. In my view, both the Registration Authority
and the Revenue Authorities viz. the Tahsildars and Talathis are
responsible for such litigation and chaos.
12/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

20. At the Court’s request, the SDO, Mumbai Western Suburb
th
has filed an affidavit dated 28 January 2026, elaborately setting out
the procedure presently adopted in the Department. The said
Affidavit sets out the automated and integrated digital system now in
place following the amendment to the Land Revenue Code in 2014,
particularly of Sections 149, 150 and 154. The relevant paragraphs
Nos.3 to 4 of Affidavit are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“3) The prevailing practice involves an integrated
digital process where registration of a document
automatically triggers a mutation process, minimizing
the need for manual applications by the buyer.
1. The Automated/Online Process (e-Mutation)
The current, standard procedure is largely driven by the
e-
Mutation/e-Ferfar system.
• Automatic Notification: When a document is
registered at the Sub-Registrar's office, the data is
digitally sent to the Tahsildar and Talathi (village
officer).
• No Application Required: Under the 2014
amendment (Section 150), for registered
documents, the new owner does not necessarily
need to file a separate mutation application (Form
6) to the Talathi, as the Sub-Registrar sends the
memorandum automatically.
• Online Application (Alternative): If the
13/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

automation does not initiate, owners can apply
online via the Aaple Sarkar website or
MahaBhulekh portal, uploading the registered
document, Index II, and ID proof.
2. The Step-by-Step Procedure
1. Registration: The buyer registers the sale/gift
deed and receives Index II.
2. Information Transfer: The Sub-Registrar sends
the
registered data to the Talathi.
3. Preliminary Entry (Ferfar): The Talathi makes
an entry (Mutation Entry) in the Ferfar Register
(mutation register).
4. Public Notice: A public notice is published,
usually
in the village Chavadi (village office) or sent via
SMS/email, informing interested parties.
5. Objection Period: A 30-day notice period is
provided for any objections.
6. Certification: If no objections are raised, the
Circle Inspector/Talathi certifies the mutation
entry, officially updating the 7/12 extract.
4) Standard Operations Procedure (SOP) for Mutation
Entry
1. Mutation Entry
Step-I: Talathi logs in with Login name and
password using registered digital signature.
14/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

Step-2: After successful login, Talathi makes a
mutation entry as per required mutation request.
Step-3 : after the Preview of 7/12 for mutation
effects is shown to Talathi who confirms for desired
effects.
Step-4: If desired effects are proper, the mutation is
saved in the system.
Step-5: If desired effects are not proper, then the
Talati is allowed to make necessary changes and the
process is repeated till the desired effects are seen
properly.
Step-6 : Next, Mutation Register Extract is
generated by Talathi and the mutation data is
digitally signed and also the Mutation Register PDF
is digitally signed
Step-7 : Notice-IX is generated by Talati and served
to all concerned parties and one copy on which
signature of parties to whom notice is served is to
be kept as part of office file
Step-8 : After mandatory period of 15 days (counted
with respect to the party to whom notice is served
last), Objection remark is explicitly entered by
Talathi
Step-9 : If objection is received, then Talati gives
such remark as “Received Objection” and the
mutation is not available to the circle officer for
certification till that time as objection is pending
Step-10: If objection is not received, then Talati
15/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

gives such remark as "Objection not received" and
the mutation is available to the circle officer for
certification.”
21. In my view, in the aforestated automated system where
the notifications are sent to each of the Departments viz. the Talathis
and Tahsildars, such a notification must also be sent to the concerned
parties. Further, notifications should be sent within stipulated time
to enable parties to notify the Sub-Registrar about any error in its
initiation, who in turn, may rectify the error at his end and if not
done for any reason, notify the parties to adopt the next step as
contemplated. Notably, even this automated and integrated digital
system, presently in force in the State of Maharashtra, contemplates
a process for calling for and deciding objections. The statements
contained in this Affidavit are accepted.
22. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Meena
1
Rizvi v State of Maharashtra in addition to the principles set out
therein, it would be necessary to set out herein certain principles to
be kept in mind by the concerned Authorities / Revenue Officers for
dealing with or deciding the Applications raising objections:
a. A ‘mutation entry’ does not confer any right, title
or interest in favour of any person and the mutation
entry in the revenue record is made only for the
1
2026 SCC OnLine Bom 818
16/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

fiscal purpose.
b. The objections to be entertained and dealt with
relate to the entries proposed to be made and not to
the rights of the parties in or to the immovable
properties. Therefore, the summary enquiry
contemplated is confined to ascertain whether
documents produced before such authorities
apparently disclose acquisition of right in favour of
the applicant, in the manner and of the nature
claimed, and not whether the applicant is in fact
entitled to claim such right in or to the property.
The revenue authorities are not empowered to
adjudicate upon the title and rights of the parties to
the immovable proprieties.
c. A presumption operates in favour of a mutation
sought on the basis of registered instrument. Unless
the objector has challenged the registered
instrument and obtained injunctive or interim
orders in that regard, the objector cannot oppose
mutation based on it.
d. By way of illustration, the revenue authorities
may relegate parties to civil proceedings (these
17/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

being exceptions), in the following cases:
i. where mutation is sought on the basis of a Will
and the Will itself is disputed or unproved, revenue
authorities are duty-bound to refuse mutation and
direct the claimant to first establish rights before a
competent civil Court;
ii. where there are two competing registered
documents [in which case, the person who discloses
better title than the other and who is in possession,
will have an edge over the other]; and
iii. where there is a mis-match in the sequencing or
flow of entries in the revenue record.
23. Mutation entries may also be inserted in red pencil or in
red colour in electronic form to depict on-going disputes and
competing claims, so that the public at large are also put to notice of
them.
24. Further, dedicated helplines and/or complaint centers be
put in place to address complaints of or against Revenue Officers who
refuse to perform their duties and to make the requisite mutation
entries. However, there must be a timeline stipulated after which
only such complaints would be entertained.
25. In my view, after receiving an Application for change of
18/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

mutation entry from the legal heirs of a deceased, the Tehsildar and/
or Talathi, whoever is the concerned Authority for affecting the
mutation entry, must necessarily follow the procedure set out
hereunder:
(i) A death certificate of the deceased must be
obtained, together with a Will, Probate, Letters of
Administration, a No Objection from the other legal heirs
and representative, and an Affidavit-cum-undertaking
from the concerned Applicant as to the existence of legal
heirs and representatives of the deceased;
(ii) Proof of payment of property taxes, water bills,
electricity bills and/ or any other payments made to any of
the authorities for a period of at least previous three years
thereby enabling the Revenue Authorities to verify the
details of erstwhile owners;
(iii) A letter from the Sub Registrar’s office confirming
that no document has been registered for the sale or
purchase of the property in question;
(iv) A site visit to the property, duly recorded in a report
along with photographs stamped with day, date and time of
the visit;
(v) To confirm the site visit and the authenticity of report,
19/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

the report should also contain a statement of persons
present on the property on the date of inspection, and, if
anyone who claims title through a legal document is found
on the property, a notice should be duly served on them to
raise objections, if any, to the proposed mutation entries;
(vi) Apart from the bank statements evincing payments
or receipts from the assessment department, a written
confirmation must be obtained from the Revenue and
Assessment Department, Building Department, Water
Department, verifying the payments made by the
Applicant who seeks a change of name in the records;
(vii) The entire procedure ought to be completed within
a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of the Application.
26. The Revenue Authorities must update the owner’s email,
phone numbers and postal address in their records annually.
27. The State must take effective steps to make the
concerned Officer or Officers in each of the Department accountable
for failing to respond, within the stipulated period, to Applications
made to the concerned Departments for effecting entries in favour of
the Applicant.
28. Where an objection raised to a mutation entry, the
objector should be called upon to give an undertaking to secure the
20/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

Applicant for such costs as may be necessary or required to be paid,
in the event the objection is found to be wrong or unsustainable. The
objections, if any, must be decided within a maximum period of eight
weeks from the date on which the objection is raised. The entire
procedure ought to be completed within a maximum period of four
months from the date of lodging of the Application.
29. I hereby clarify that these guidelines are issued for and
are applicable not only to, the Revenue Officers, but also the
Appellate and Revisional Authorities, including all those authorities
contemplated under the relevant Acts as well as the State.
30. In my view, following this procedure would reduce
litigations, if any, and warn the objecting parties of illegal acts.
31. Although, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 18 have consented
for setting aside the impugned Order, this Court deems it fit to impose
a cost of Rs.7,00,000/- upon the Respondents payable to the
Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, for the loss,
injury and prejudice to the Petitioner- Society on account of delay of
over seven years for redevelopment of their property. In the event of
failure on the part of the Respondents to pay the costs within the
stipulated period, the Petitioner shall be entitled to recover the same
under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, without prejudice to
its rights to adopt any other mode of recovery permissible under law.
21/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31

Sumedh 1-oswp-2631-2026(1).docx

This imposition of costs would hopefully act as deterrent for all
unscrupulous litigants who wrongfully make such Applications
before the Tahsildar(s) and Talathi(s) for incorporating their names
in the 7/12 extracts.
32. The Prothonotary & Senior Master is directed to intimate
this Order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department,
State of Maharashtra for effective implementation throughout the
State.
33. Let the responsible Officer of the concerned
Department/Departments file an Affidavit of compliance after
considering and adopting the suggestions made in this Judgment on
st
or before 1 December, 2026.
34. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off with the
aforesaid directions.
35. In view of the disposal of the Petition, Interim Application
filed therein also stands disposed off.
st
36. Place the matter for compliance on 1 December, 2026.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
Judgment relied
Meena Rizvi v State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 818
22/22
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:35:31
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)