The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that even where no statutory limitation exists, the State Government cannot exercise revisional powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code after an unreasonable delay of 24 years. This judgment restores the principle that legal certainty must prevail over untimely challenges to settled property records.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on Mutation Entry No. 2534, dated 01.06.1989, relating to Survey Number 170/3 in Shirpur, Dhule. The petitioner and respondent no. 7, brothers, jointly purchased the land under a registered sale deed executed in favor of respondent no. 7. Despite the sale deed naming only respondent no. 7, an application was made for joint mutation in both names. On 30.06.1989, Mutation Entry No. 2534 was certified by the revenue authorities, reflecting both brothers as co-owners.
Key Facts
- The registered sale deed was executed on 01.06.1989, naming respondent no. 7 as the sole purchaser.
- On 30.06.1989, Mutation Entry No. 2534 was certified, including the petitioner as joint owner.
- Respondent no. 7 never objected to the joint mutation entry at the time of its recording.
- Both brothers availed bank loans in 2001 and 2005 respectively, relying on the mutation entry as proof of ownership.
- A family dispute arose in 2013, prompting respondent no. 7 to file a revision application under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code challenging the mutation entry.
- The challenge was filed 24 years after the mutation entry was certified.
Procedural History
- 30.06.1989: Mutation Entry No. 2534 certified by revenue authorities.
- 2001: Petitioner obtained bank loan based on Mutation Entry No. 2534.
- 2005: Respondent no. 7 obtained bank loan based on the same entry.
- 2013: Respondent no. 7 filed Revision Application No. 5 of 2013 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirpur.
- 2014: Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the revision application.
- 2015: Additional Collector confirmed the dismissal.
- 2016: Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, upheld the dismissal.
- 14.10.2024: State Government, in Revision Application No. 3124/PK.31/J-6A, set aside all three prior orders, condoned the 24-year delay, and remitted the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh inquiry.
- 18.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 11158 of 2025 reserved for judgment.
- 30.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contends that the 24-year delay in challenging the mutation entry is fatal, and that the State Government exceeded its jurisdiction by condoning such delay. He asserts that the mutation entry had been acted upon for decades, including for financial transactions, and that allowing the revision would disrupt settled rights.
Respondent no. 7 argues that the mutation entry was legally invalid because the sale deed named only him as purchaser, and that the State Government has inherent power to call for records and correct errors at any time, regardless of delay.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of the State Government’s order dated 14.10.2024, restoration of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector, and Additional Commissioner dismissing the revision, and a declaration that Mutation Entry No. 2534 remains valid.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State Government, under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, can condone a delay of 24 years in filing a revision against a mutation entry, and whether such an exercise constitutes an abuse of power despite the absence of a statutory limitation period.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate, argued that while Section 257 does not prescribe a limitation period for the State Government’s revisional power, the Supreme Court in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale has held that such power must be exercised within a reasonable time - ordinarily three years. He emphasized that the mutation entry had been in effect for 24 years, relied upon for bank loans, and that allowing revision at this stage would violate principles of finality, equity, and legitimate expectation. He further contended that the State Government’s action was ultra vires because it effectively nullified the statutory limitation of five years under the proviso to Section 257(1), which requires prior permission for revision beyond that period.
For the Respondent
Mr. A.P. Bhandari argued that the mutation entry was a nullity (non est) because the sale deed did not confer any right on the petitioner. He contended that Section 257(4) grants the State Government plenary power to call for records and set aside any order at any time, and that condonation of delay is inherent in this power. He asserted that substantive justice requires correction of erroneous records, even after long delays, and that the State Government’s intervention was necessary to rectify a manifest error in the record of rights.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court on revisional powers. It noted that while Section 257(4) does not prescribe a time limit for the State Government’s revisional jurisdiction, the absence of a statutory limitation does not equate to unlimited power.
"It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time."
The Court relied on Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale (2009) 9 SCC 352, where the Supreme Court held that a delay of 17 years in invoking revisional power was unreasonable and amounted to an abuse of process. The Court further cited Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran (2025) 6 SCR 253, emphasizing that delay cannot be condoned merely as an act of generosity, and that prejudice to the opposing party must be weighed.
The Court observed that the mutation entry had been in existence for 24 years, during which both parties had acted upon it - securing loans, paying taxes, and conducting transactions. The fact that respondent no. 7 had never objected during this period, and only challenged the entry after a family dispute, indicated mala fide timing rather than genuine error.
The Court held that the State Government’s condonation of a 24-year delay was not merely an error of judgment but an exercise of power beyond legal bounds. The revisional power, even if plenary, must be exercised in harmony with the doctrine of finality and the public interest in maintaining settled titles. The State Government’s order was therefore held to be ultra vires and arbitrary.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The State Government’s order dated 14.10.2024, which condoned the 24-year delay and remitted the matter for fresh inquiry, is quashed and set aside. The orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector, and Additional Commissioner dismissing the revision application are restored. Mutation Entry No. 2534 dated 01.06.1989 remains valid. The parties are at liberty to pursue their claims in a competent civil court, unimpeded by the impugned revenue entry.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Revisional Powers Are Not Unlimited
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 257 revisional powers, even when untime-bound, are constrained by the doctrine of reasonable time.
- A delay exceeding 10 - 15 years will almost certainly be deemed unreasonable, especially where rights have been settled and third parties have relied on the record.
- Revenue authorities and State Governments cannot use revisional jurisdiction to circumvent statutory limitation periods under Section 257(1).
Finality of Revenue Records Is Protected
- Mutation entries that have stood for more than two decades, especially where financial transactions (loans, mortgages, sales) have been based on them, are legally protected.
- Banks and financial institutions may now rely on long-standing mutation entries as valid proof of title, absent fraud or collusion.
- Any challenge to such entries after 10 years must be accompanied by compelling, documented reasons for delay - not mere assertion of error.
Judicial Scrutiny of State Intervention
- Courts will now closely examine State Government orders condoning long delays in revenue revisions.
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate not just cause for delay, but also absence of prejudice to the other party.
- This judgment reinforces that administrative justice must not override legal certainty.
