Chandrakant Arjun Rane & Ors. v. Shyamsunder Harishchandra Rane & Ors.

Mr.D.A.Patil for Petitioners. CORAM: RAJESH G. KETKAR, J. August 6, 2012. P.C.

Heard Mr.D.A. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners at length.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged (i) the judgment and order dated 2nd April 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Revenue in appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “Code”); (ii) judgment and order dated 21st April 2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Konkan in a revision application preferred under Section 257 of the Code; (iii) 2 of 3 wp-4619-2012 judgment and order dated 21st December 2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Sindhudurg in appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 247 of the Code; and (iv) the judgment and order dated 16th February 2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kankavali Division Kankavali in appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 247 of the Code. By these orders, the authorities below set aside the Mutation Entry No.72 made in favour of Arjun Yashwant Rane and restored Mutation Entry No.277. By the impugned orders, the authorities below came to the conclusion that as per the Gift Deed dated 25th May 1932, the property in question was gifted by Narayan Babu Sawant to Dhondu Yashwant Rane, father of the respondents. However, while certifying mutation entry No.72 on 2nd June 1954, it was recorded that the sale deed was executed by Narayan Babu Rane to Arjun Yashwant Rane brother of Dhondu, upon payment of Rs.100/- on 25th May 1932. The authorities below concurrently held that the Mutation entry No.72 was not made in favour of Dhondu Yashwant Rane in terms of the Gift Deed and was wrongly made in favour of Arjun. Considering this aspect, the authorities below have passed the impugned orders. I do not find that the authorities below committed any error in passing the impugned orders. In any case the petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil court for establishing their 3 of 3 wp-4619-2012 rights in respect of the property in question.

In view of this, no case is made out for invocation of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.)