"Challenge After 33 Years Without Condonation Is Void From the Outset”, Bombay High Court (Justice Milind N. Jadhav) delivered a pivotal ruling in the land title dispute between the Gaikar family (tenants) and Adurkar family (landlords), arising from conflicting claims over agricultural land situated in Ghansoli, Thane District. The case involved a delayed challenge to mutation entries and subsequent tenancy proceedings under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (MTAL Act). In a judgment that reinforces the importance of limitation principles and proper jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the Gaikar family’s writ petition for having invoked the revenue jurisdiction after an inordinate delay of 33 years without seeking condonation, while allowing the landlords’ claim, restoring their entitlement to the land and acquisition benefits.

The central controversy revolved around agricultural land bearing Survey No.354, Gut No.116, which was earlier cultivated by the Gaikar family, who claimed protected tenancy. In 1962, by Mutation Entry No.1201, their names were deleted from revenue records. The land was later acquired by CIDCO in 1986, with compensation awarded to the landlord family, Adurkars. After a gap of 33 years, in 1996, the Gaikar family belatedly challenged the 1962 mutation entry without filing any application for condonation of delay before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Thane. In 2001, the SDO allowed their appeal and restored their names, which was later set aside by the Additional Commissioner in 2005.

The High Court was approached through two petitions: Writ Petition No.2547 of 2006 by the Gaikar family challenging the Additional Commissioner’s order, and Writ Petition No.10280 of 2023 by the Adurkar family challenging subsequent tenancy proceedings initiated by Gaikars under Section 32G of the MTAL Act.

Limitation and Jurisdiction:

Justice Jadhav underscored the fundamental flaw in the proceedings initiated by the Gaikar family: “Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Gaikar family after a humongous delay of more than 33 years was without an application seeking condonation of delay and without giving any sufficient explanation for such gross delay and laches.”

Reaffirming settled legal principles, the Court held: “In absence of any formal application for condonation of delay or any adjudication on the aspect of delay, the SDO could not have assumed jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. The order dated 20.12.2001 is a nullity in law and not sustainable.”

The Court cited its own ruling in Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur (W.P. No.2658/2018), following precedents such as Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke vs. Shaikh Hamaja Husen and Sidappa Rama Patil vs. Sattur Laxman Kole, reiterating:
“Proceedings commenced without condonation of delay are inherently without jurisdiction and any orders passed therein are null and void.”

Mutation Entries Are Not Title Documents—Civil Suit Is the Remedy:

The Court made a crucial clarification on the role of mutation entries: “It is settled law that mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of a person and mutation is only for fiscal purpose. Any dispute with regard to title can only be adjudicated by a Civil Court.”

Criticizing the Gaikar family’s route through revenue proceedings instead of civil court, the Court stated: “If members of the Gaikar family desire to stake claim to any substantive right, they will have to approach the appropriate Civil Court rather than use the shield of RTS proceedings in the manner in which they have proceeded.”

Section 32G Tenancy Proceedings Also Set Aside:

Since the Section 32G purchase proceedings and issuance of 32M certificate were based on the invalid order dated 20.12.2001, the Court held the entire subsequent proceedings void. It explained: “All subsequent steps and proceedings taken by the Gaikar family under Section 32G of the MTAL Act stand vitiated and non est.”

Consequently, the Court directed the deletion of Mutation Entries Nos. 2473, 2474, and 2475, which had restored the names of Gaikar family.

Allotment of Acquired Land Benefits Restored to Landlords:

The Court directed CIDCO to hand over the earmarked plot and other acquisition benefits to the landlord family:
“CIDCO is directed to hand over the earmarked plot and any benefit in lieu of acquisition to the members of Adurkar family within a period of four weeks from today, strictly in accordance with law.”

Title Is a Civil Right, Not a Matter of Revenue Records

Summarising its reasoning, the Court declared:“This Court cannot countenance the abuse of revenue proceedings to usurp ownership rights which are purely matters of civil adjudication.”

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the tenant family, upheld the landlord family’s claims, and reminded all stakeholders that disputes over ownership must be settled through civil courts and not by manipulating mutation entries or tenancy proceedings after unjustifiable delays.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2025