2026:BHC-NAG:233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 216 OF 2025 KU. ANVESHNA GYANPRASAD PATHAK VERSUS THE ADITIONAL COLLECTOR, NAGPUR AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Order appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. V. V. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Prachi T. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. R. M. Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr. Mandar R. Pande, Advocate for R.Nos.4(i,ii,iii), 5, 6(ii,iii,iv,v)

CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.

DATE : JANUARY 05, 2026.

1. Heard.

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by respondent no.1 – Additional Collector, Nagpur, whereby the order dated 22.04.2022 pased by respondent no.2 – Sub Divisional Officer, Saoner permitting to mutate the name of respondent no.3 by cancelling entry mutated in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record has been confirmed.

3. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case in detail. Suffice to say that respondent no.3 filed an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the MLR Code”) seeking cancellation of mutation entry effected in favour of the petitioner after considerable period of 29 years without there being any application for condonation of delay. The said appeal came to be allowed by respondent no.2 – Sub Divisional Officer which was confirmed by respondent no.1 – Additional Collector.

4. The only point raised in this petition is that after the expiry of statutory period of limitation, the appeal cannot be entertained by the authority without there being an application for condonation of delay or without mentioning the reasons in the memo of appeal for not approaching the authority within limitation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to rely on the decision in the case of Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur and others .vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur and others, reported at 2021 (5) Mh.L.J. 669, more particularly paragraph 15 which is reproduced as under :

“15. In view of the above settled legal position and the particular facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that respondents have not filed the application for seeking condonation of delay to file statutory appeal to challenge mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010. In that view of the matter, it is settled that any order passed by the Court / Authority would be without jurisdiction and nullity. It is important to note that the petitioners have consistently from inception in all their pleadings maintained this ground. In the present case neither the Appellate Authorities nor the Revisional Authorities have examined the question of delay though it has been consistently raised by the petitioners, particularly when there was no application or order condoning the delay in the proceedings in the first instance. Therefore, in other words the appellate authorities and the revisional authorities have acted without jurisdiction in deciding the proceedings on merits and without first condoning the delay. Unless the delay was condoned appellate authorities and the revisional authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in law.”

6. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and others .vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar, reported at 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 276 wherein, in paragraph 15 it has been held as under :

“15. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the petitioners had produced a registered sale deed dated 15-7-1998 while requesting for entry in their favour in mutation register. The Talathi based on the said document had allowed the application filed by the petitioners and had carried out necessary mutat