1. Representation by Counsel:

• Fact:
  Heard Mr. Tejesh Dande for the Petitioners and Ms. Dhruti Kapadia for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Grievance on Prayer Clause (b) Resolved:

• Fact:
  Relief under prayer clause (b) stands resolved as noted by both counsel. Panchanama placed on record by Ms. Kapadia.

3. Pending Mutation Application:

• Fact:
  Petitioners applied for mutation on 19 November 2018, and the application remains undisposed. Petitioners request timely disposal.

4. Commitment by Respondent:

• Fact:
  Ms. Kapadia commits on behalf of the mutation authorities to dispose of the application within three months per the law and natural justice.

5. Direction by Court:

• Fact:
  The Court accepts the timeline and directs the mutation authorities to dispose of the application while ensuring an opportunity for all parties to be heard.

6. Non-Service to Certain Respondents:

• Fact:
  Private Respondents (Nos. 7 to 20) have not been served. Court condones non-service since relief under prayer clause (b) is resolved and directions to authorities ensure fairness to all parties.

7. Petition Disposed of Without Costs:

• Fact:
  Petition disposed of with directions and no costs awarded.

8. Authentication and Compliance:

• Fact:
  Court permits reliance on authenticated copies of the order for compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment emphasizes the need for timely administrative action by mutation authorities in disposing of applications while ensuring adherence to natural justice. The resolution of pending applications impacts parties' rights to property and procedural fairness.

Subjects:

• #NaturalJustice
• #MutationApplication
• #AdministrativeLaw
• #GrievanceRedressal
• #TimelyJustice