2025:BHC-AS:57833 Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3951 OF 2025 Baliram Paddu Bagat (since deceased through his legal heirs) Smt. Gulabbai Baliram Bhagat .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w Mr. Saurabh Butala i/by Mr. Govind Mundhe, Advocates for Petitioner.

 Mr. O.A. Chandurkar a/w. Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGPs for Respondent – State.

 Mr. Anand Waradkar a/w Akash Kotecha i/by Navin Dhongadu, Advocates for Respondent No.8 and 9.

......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2025.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Sathe, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Chandurkar, learned AGP for Respondent – State and Mr. Waradkar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.8 and 9.

2. The present Writ Petition assails the judgment and order dated 14.01.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 i.e. Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Revision Application No.734 of 2024 whereby the Revision Application filed by Respondent Nos.7 to 8 was allowed and delay of 64 years was condoned.

3. The facts germane to the present case are as follows:-

3.1. The dispute is between brother and his sister through their legal heirs with respect to Mutation Entry No.585 dated 24.02.1958 in respect of suit land bearing (old Survey No.124/0) and new Survey No.128/0 admeasuring 0.82.72 H.R. situated at village Nerepada, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’).

3.2. The suit land was originally owned by Paddu Mahadu Bhagat who expired in the year 1958. Pursuant thereto by Mutation Entry No.585 name of Baliram Paddu Bhagat was recorded.

3.3. It is Petitioner’s case that in the year 1983, Baliram transferred his right in favour of his wife by executing necessary documents and thereafter Petitioner’s name was mutated by Mutation Entry No.1593 in the Revenue Record and it so continued in the Revenue Record and she was in possession of the suit land. It is Petitioner’s case that in the year 1983 Devika Paddu Bhagat alias Subhadra Shantaram Mali (Baliram’s sister) did not challenge the Mutation Entry until her demise in the year 2009. It is Petitioner’s case that on 07.09.2022 i.e. only after 64 years the legal heirs of Devika Paddu Bhagat i.e. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 initiated the present RTS proceedings.

3.4. By order dated 07.08.2023, Sub-Divisional Officer after hearing both the sides rejected the delay condonation Application filed by Respondent Nos.7 to 9. Being aggrieved, Respondent Nos.7 to 9 challenged the order dated 07.08.2023 before the Additional Collector, Raigad by filing Appeal No.91 of 2024.

3.5. By order dated 30.07.2024, Additional Collector, Raigad dismissed the Appeal No.91 of 2024 and confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Being aggrieved, Respondent Nos.7 to 9 challenged the said order by RTS Revision Application No.734 of 2024 before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

3.6. By order dated 14.01.2025, Additional Divisional Commissioner , Konkan Division allowed the RTS Revision Application and quashed and set aside the orders passed by SDO and Additional Collector, Raigad and cancelled the Mutation Entry No.585 and 1593 in respect of suit land.

3.7. Hence, being aggrieved by order dated 14.01.2025 passed in RTS Revision Application No.734 of 2024, Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Mr. Sathe, learned Advocate for Petitioner would submit that the proceedings initiated by Respondents are founded on erroneous premise and are clearly barred by limitation. He would submit that Respondents approached the Authorities to challenge the Mutation Entries after an unexplained delay of 64 years without placing on record any substantial or cogent material / reason for such delay. He would submit that there exists a clear dichotomy in the description of the Survey Number of the suit land in Appeal filed by Respondent Nos.7 to 9 which creates ambiguity reg