Bombay HC Quashes Upa-Lokayukta Order Cancelling 1984 Mutation Entry; Holds Recommendatory Powers Cannot Replace Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 16.09.2026

Bombay HC Quashes Upa-Lokayukta Order Cancelling 1984 Mutation Entry; Holds Recommendatory Powers Cannot Replace Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction

​​​The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has set aside an order of the Upa-Lokayukta, Maharashtra, which had recommended cancellation of a decades-old mutation entry and recovery of possession of agricultural land, holding that the Upa-Lokayukta had exceeded the jurisdiction available under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971.

Justice Pravin S. Patil, deciding Rajendra s/o Bhagirath Bansile & Ors. v. The Up Lok-Ayukta, Maharashtra State & Anr., Writ Petition No. 5794 of 2013, 2026:BHC-NAG:11956, held that while the Upa-Lokayukta possesses recommendatory jurisdiction, such powers cannot be exercised as a substitute for the statutory powers vested in authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

The Court ultimately restored Mutation Entry No. 97 relating to Survey No. 84/3, Gat No. 216, in favour of the petitioners.

Dispute Over Agricultural Land and Mutation Entry

• The petitioners claimed to be co-owners of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 216, Old Survey No. 84/3, situated at village Pimpalgaon (Chilamkha), Tahsil Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana.
• According to them, Bhagirath Ramdas Bansile, father of the first two petitioners, had been cultivating and possessing approximately 5.05 hectares of land out of Survey No. 84/3, with his name appearing in the crop statement since 1973-74.
• In March 1989, the land was partitioned between Bhagirath Bansile and his four sons, following which their names were mutated in the revenue records. Petitioners 3 to 5 subsequently purchased 3.05 hectares through a registered sale deed dated 5 February 2009 and their names were also entered in the revenue records.

Complaint Before Upa-Lokayukta Questioned 1984 Revenue Entry

• The controversy began when the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Upa-Lokayukta on 7 August 2009.
• The complaint alleged, among other things, that certain lands had wrongly been reflected as Occupant Class-I instead of Class-II, and that the sale in favour of some of the petitioners had been effected without obtaining the Collector’s permission or depositing the alleged unearned income.
• It was further alleged that Survey No. 84/3 had not been allotted to Bhagirath Bansile during consolidation proceedings in 1984 and that the Consolidation Officer had allegedly extended undue favour by causing the land to be mutated in his name.
• Following the complaint, the Upa-Lokayukta initiated an inquiry and sought reports from revenue officers.

SDO Had Already Ordered Regularisation in 2013

• During the pendency of the Upa-Lokayukta proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldhana, by an order dated 24 May 2013, granted permission for regularisation of the land in the petitioners’ names and forwarded the matter to the Tahsildar, Deulgaon Raja for further action.
• The revenue authorities also placed this development before the Upa-Lokayukta.
• Nevertheless, on 7 August 2013, the Upa-Lokayukta passed the impugned order recommending cancellation of the mutation entries in favour of the petitioners and steps for recovery of possession.
• The petitioners consequently approached the Bombay High Court.

Three-Year Limitation Under Section 8(5)

• One of the central issues before the High Court concerned Section 8(5) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971.
• The provision distinguishes between a complaint involving a “grievance” and one involving an “allegation.”
• Under Section 8(5), a complaint involving an allegation cannot be investigated if it is made after three years from the date on which the complained-of action is alleged to have taken place. The statutory proviso permitting consideration of sufficient cause applies to the period concerning a “grievance,” rather than providing a similar extension for an allegation beyond the prescribed three-year period.
• The Act defines an “allegation” in relation to a public servant to include assertions involving abuse of position to obtain gain or favour, improper or corrupt motives, corruption or lack of integrity. A “grievance,” on the other hand, concerns a claim of injustice or undue hardship resulting from maladministration.

Complaint Was an “Allegation”, Not Merely a “Grievance”: High Court

• After examining the complaint, the High Court held that it fell within the category of an “allegation.”
• The complaint accused the authorities of extending undue favour to Bhagirath Bansile while effecting the revenue entry. Consequently, the applicable limitation period was three years from the complained-of action.
• The impugned Mutation Entry No. 97 was dated 30 April 1984, whereas the complaint before the Upa-Lokayukta was lodged only on 7 August 2009.
• The High Court therefore found that the complaint was prima facie barred by limitation and held that, in view of the mandate of Section 8(5), the Upa-Lokayukta could not investigate the complaint.

Upa-Lokayukta Has Recommendatory, Not Appellate, Jurisdiction

• The second major issue concerned the nature and extent of the Upa-Lokayukta’s powers.
• The State relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Additional Tahsildar & Anr. v. Urmila G. & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 642, contending that the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta exercises recommendatory jurisdiction.
• The High Court accepted the principle that the Upa-Lokayukta can make recommendations to the competent authorities. However, Justice Patil emphasised that a Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta cannot act as an appellate authority over decisions of competent forums created under other statutes.
• Where a statute creates its own appeal or revision mechanism, an aggrieved party must pursue those statutory remedies.
• The Court succinctly observed that “Recommendatory powers cannot take place of statutory powers.”

Upa-Lokayukta Effectively Exercised Land Revenue Powers

• Although the impugned order was styled as a recommendation under Section 12 of the 1971 Act, the High Court examined its substance rather than merely its title.
• The Court found that the Upa-Lokayukta had directed the Collector, Buldhana, to cancel Mutation Entry No. 97, forfeit the land to the Government and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officers.
• According to the High Court, this demonstrated that the Upa-Lokayukta had effectively exercised powers of an appellate authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
• The Court consequently held that the order was unsustainable in law because the Upa-Lokayukta had exceeded the limits of its statutory jurisdiction.

Failure to Consider SDO’s Regularisation Order

• The High Court also took note of the fact that the SDO’s 24 May 2013 regularisation order had been brought to the notice of the Upa-Lokayukta before the impugned order was passed.
• Despite this, the Upa-Lokayukta’s order did not consider the regularisation decision, even though the High Court regarded it as a fact capable of materially affecting the decision.
• Thus, apart from the jurisdictional and limitation issues, the Court found that relevant factual and legal aspects had not been appropriately considered.

Bombay High Court Restores Mutation Entry

Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court:

1. quashed and set aside the Upa-Lokayukta’s order dated 7 August 2013 in Case No. ULA/COM/104/2010 (T-15); and
2. directed restoration of Mutation Entry No. 97 concerning Survey No. 84/3, Gat No. 216, Mouza Pimpalgaon Chilamkha, Taluka Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana, in favour of the petitioners.

The Court made no order as to costs.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment draws a clear institutional boundary around the powers of the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. Their statutory role may include investigation and recommendations, but that role cannot be transformed into an appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over authorities exercising powers under separate enactments.

The ruling is also significant on limitation under Section 8(5) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971. Where a complaint falls within the statutory category of an “allegation,” the High Court’s reasoning confirms the importance of the prescribed three-year period. Accordingly, the case reinforces two distinct safeguards: statutory limitation on the investigation of stale allegations and jurisdictional limits on recommendatory authorities interfering with decisions governed by separate statutory appeal or revision mechanisms.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com