The Bombay High Court has held that the Revenue Minister acted beyond jurisdiction in reopening the execution of a 1955 consent decree concerning land that had already been delivered in possession to the decree-holders.
Justice N.J. Jamadar, while partly allowing a batch of petitions, observed that the Revenue authorities could not have disturbed the partition of Survey No.80/3, which had attained finality under the decree passed by the High Court, decades ago.
The Court was dealing with multiple writ petitions challenging the Revenue Minister’s order which directed the Tahsildar, Nashik, to prepare a fresh partition chart in execution of the 1955 decree. The litigation had its genesis in a partition suit of 1949 concerning agricultural lands in Nashik. Under the consent decree passed in 1955, the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of Survey No.80/3 and a one-fourth share in Survey Nos.867/1 and 867/2. Possession of the lands was delivered on August 31, 1998, and Mutation Entry No.38741 was certified in the names of the decree-holders.
In 2024, the Revenue Minister allowed a revision filed by the successors of the original defendants, holding that the partition chart prepared in 1992 was defective and that the plaintiffs had received more land than their entitlement. Acting on this, the Tahsildar cancelled mutation entries and reopened the mattes, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court contending that the Minister’s order amounted to reopening a settled decree and deprived them of property lawfully conveyed to them. Petitioners contended that the Minister could not have reopened the issues which stood finally settled by the orders of the Civil Court.
The Court agreed with the petitioner’s submission that the land bearing Survey No.80/3 was never the subject matter of dispute before the revenue authorities and could not have been reopened by the Minister.
The Court held that the cancellation of Mutation Entry and subsequent orders of the Tahsildar were illegal and contrary to the terms of the consent decree. It clarified that the proceedings before the revenue authorities were confined to the lands bearing Survey Nos.867/1 and 867/2, and that inclusion of Survey No.80/3 in the revision was wholly unwarranted. The High Court noted that any attempt to alter the allocation of Survey No.80/3 amounted to indirectly challenging the High Court’s own decree passed in 1955, which the Minister could not do.
Concluding that the dictates of justice required restoration of the decree’s sanctity, the Court declared the impugned orders dated September 27, 2024, and July 21, 2025, illegal and unsustainable to the extent they affected Survey No.80/3.
Appearances
Petitioners- Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Pradeeo Thorat and Ms. Aditi Naikare, Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w. Mr. Vivek Salunkhe, Mr. Vivek Punjabi, Mr. Ashish Venugopal i/by Mr. Adv. Parichehr Zaiwalla, Adv. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Priyansh Jain Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat i/by Ms. Aditi Naikare, Mr. Priyansh R. Jain, Ms. Tanvii Tapkire
Respondents- Mr. P. S. Dani, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde i/b. Mr. Rohan Gaikward Mr. Atul Damle, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. Ajinkya Jaibhave, Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde i/b. Mr. Gurudas Gorwadkar, Smt. P. J. Gavhane, AGP, Mr. Surel Shah, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde i/ by Mr. Rohan Gaikwad Shri P. V. Nelsonrajan, AGP, Shri S.D. Chipade, AGP, Shri M.S. Shrivastava, AGP, Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurudas Gorwadkar, Smt. S.R. Crasto, AGP
