High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 wp 6665-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 20191.Indrabai w/o Namdeo MandlikAge : 76 years, Occu. : Agri.2.Vitthal s/o Namdeo MandlikDied through his sonBapu s/o Vitthal MandlikAge : 32 years, Occu. : Agri. 3.Raghunath s/o Namdeo MandlikAge : 49 years, Occu. : Agri. 4.Bhausaheb s/o Namdeo MandlikAge : 44 years, Occu. : Agri. 5.Sindhubai Ajinath AdsulAge : 51 years, Occu. : Agri. 6.Sojarbai Hausrao RajguruAge : 48 years, Occu. : Agri. 7.Alka Uddhav GadeAge : 40 years, Occu. : Agri. 8.Jalasabai Mahadeo AdsulAge : 78 years, Occu. : Agri. 9.Hausabi Sopan Londhe (Dead)Through his L.Rs.9-ARama Sopan LondheAge : 50 years, Occu. : Agri. 9-BHanbhau Sopan LondheAge : 45 years, Occu. : Agri. 9-CSavitra Zumbar ShindeAge : 65 years, Occu. : Agri. 1 of 11
Legal Reasoning
2 wp 6665-2019.odtAll R/o. Bavi, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahmednagar... Petitioners (Orig. Respondents)Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its State Minister (Revenue),Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Additional Commissioner,Nashik Division, Nashik.3.The Additional Collector,Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.4.The Sub Divisional Officer,Sub Division Office, Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar.5.The Circle Officer, Bavi,Tq. Jamkhed & Dist. Ahmednagar.6.Bapu s/o Gulab MandlikAge : 34 years, Occu. : Agri. & ServiceR/o. : Bavi, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahmednagar... Respondents (Res. No. 6 orig. applicant)Mr. N. S. Muthiyan, Advocate for the Petitioners.Mr. S. P. Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.Mr. N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.Date on which reserved for order :06th January, 2025.Date on which order pronounced :18th February, 2025. FINAL ORDER :- .This petition is by the original respondents in the proceedings 2 of 11 3 wp 6665-2019.odtfiled by respondent No. 6 – Bapu Mandlik in Revision ApplicationNo. 69/2013 before the learned SDO, Karjat. He lost before thelearned SDO, learned Collector and before the learned DivisionalCommissioner. However, he succeeded before the State Government.The Hon’ble Minister in the revision accepted the case of therespondent No. 6 and cancelled the mutation entries bearing Nos. 869,346 and 927 standing in favour of petitioners. During the proceeding,now the heirs of petitioner No. 9 are brought on record.2.The facts in short giving rise to the present petition are that, thepetitioners happen to be successors of one Ganpat Dhondiba Mandlikand Namdeo Ganpat Mandlik. The mutation entries are taken in theirnames on the land Gat Nos. 198 and197 admeasuring 4H 84R. Theirnames appeared on 7/12 extract vide mutation entry No. 346 and 927.The mutation entry No. 869 was also taken in the name of GanpatDhondiba Mandlik as the land was given to him by the Governmentbeing landless agricultural labour. These mutation entries were takenlong back. 3.It is the case of respondent No. 6 – Bapu that his father Gulabwas the only legal heir of Saheba, however, Gulab died when the Bapuwas minor. When the land was given to one Saheba Dhondiba Mandlik,it was given on condition that it would not be transferred. The 3 of 11 4 wp 6665-2019.odtrespondent No. 6 happens to be grandson of Saheba DhondibaMandlik. Saheba had transferred the land in the name of respondentNo. 6 – Bapu vide mutation entry No. 1017. Bapu was the onlysuccessor of Saheba Dhondiba Mandlik. It is for this reason therespondents started harassing his widow mother. His mother thereforeleft the village and went to reside with her parents. Thereafter, themutation entries were taken by the petitioners in their names. All thesethings came to the knowledge of Bapu after he became major. He thusfiled revision praying for cancelling mutation entry Nos. 869, 346 and927. He further prayed that his name be taken in revenue record beingonly successor of Saheba Mandlik. 4.Bapu thus approached the learned SDO, Karjat who held thatthere was partition that took place in the year 1981. It is held that thelearned Tahsildar had passed order accepting the partition betweenSaheba and Ganpat by order dated 02.03.1981. On the basis ofpartition, entry No. 869 is taken dividing the land into Survey Nos.27/1 and 27/2 i.e. the original Survey numbers before formation of Gatnumbers. This entry No. 869 is made prior to 33 years. Entry No. 346is taken on 18.12.1998 after death of Ganpat. There is no objectionraised to the said entry. Entry No. 927 is also taken long back i.e. on07.12.2011. Before learned SDO it was the case of the present 4 of 11 5 wp 6665-2019.odtpetitioners that, since the entries are taken long back, the revisioncannot be entertained even on the ground of delay and laches. Noapplication for condonation of delay is filed. The learned SDO thusconsidering all above, rejected the revision as beyond limitation. Thesaid order was confirmed.5.Bapu thereafter filed appeal before the learned AdditionalCollector along with application for condonation of delay. The learnedAdditional Collector rejected the delay condonation application as thesaid appeal was filed after nine (09) months and twenty one (21) days.It is considered that, under Section 252 of the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code (for short “MLRC”), the appeal is not maintainableagainst the order passed in revision. Bapu filed revision against theorder passed by the learned Additional Collector by approaching thelearned Divisional Commissioner. The learned Divisional Commissionerheld that, there is no sufficient explanation given for condonation ofdelay and rejected the revision. Against the said rejection, Bapu filedappeal under Section 257 of the MLRC before the State Government. 6.The Hon’ble Minister accepted the case of Bapu. It is concludedthat, the land was granted to Sahebrao Dhondiba Mandlik by theGovernment on 01.08.1960. The said land cannot be transferred. 5 of 11 6 wp 6665-2019.odtTaking the entries in the name of earlier owner Ganpat Mandlik wasnot correct. The Hon’ble Minister thus cancelled the orders passed bythe learned Divisional Commissioner and cancelled the mutationentries. The petitioners are thus before this Court.7.The learned advocate Mr. Muthiyan for the petitionersvehemently argued that, Bapu had filed a revision after 33 years beforethe learned SDO. The learned SDO rightly rejected the revision asbeyond limitation and secondly, there was no delay condonationapplication filed along with said revision. The learned Collector andthe learned Divisional Commissioner confirmed the orders, however,the Hon'ble Minister erroneously considered the matter and cancelledthe mutation entries. It is clear from the record that, it is thepetitioners who are in possession of the land. There is no case of fraudmade out by Bapu. There was no reason for the Hon'ble Minister tocause interference in the well reasoned judgments by the authorities.He relies upon the following judgments. (i)Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur and Ors. Vs.Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur and Ors. in Writ PetitionNo. 2658/2018 decided at Principal Seat at Bombay.(ii)Vinaykumar Kachrulal Abad Vs. HonourableMinister, Revenue and others reported in 2002 (1)Mh.L.J. 854. 6 of 11 7 wp 6665-2019.odt8.The learned advocate Mr. Jadhav for respondent No. 6vehemently argued that, the basic entries taken in the names of thesepetitioners were taken by playing fraud on the authorities.Undisputedly, Saheba Dhondiba was the person in whose favour theland was given. Saheba had only one son Gulab who died when Bapuwas minor. Bapu was the only successor of Saheba Dhondiba. Thepetitioners have no concern with the said land and still their names arerecorded. He submits that when the entries were taken, the Bapu wasminor and thus, there was no reason for him to challenge the entriestill he became major. Presently, a suit is filed and is pending before theCivil Court. He relies upon the following judgments.(i)Dharam Singh (D) Through L.Rs. And Ors. Vs.Prem Singh (D) Through L.Rs. in Civil Appeal No.516/2009.(ii)Shri Nivruti G. Ahire Vs. State of Maharashtra &Ors. reported in 2007 (4) ALL MR 347.9.The learned A.G.P. submits that, the land is Government land.Limited rights were created in favour of the person to whom land wasallotted. He invites attention to the order of the learned Tahsildargiving land to Saheba Dhondiba Mandlik. It was given only forcultivation and no ownership rights are created. There is specific 7 of 11
Decision
8 wp 6665-2019.odtcondition No. 2 that, he would personally cultivate the land. He thussubmits that, even the names of the petitioners could not have beentaken in the revenue record. The Hon’ble Minister has thus rightlypassed the order. He prays for rejection of the writ petition as devoidof merits. 10.In the case of Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur and Ors. (supra), thisCourt at Principal Seat at Bombay considered, in similar situation,where the revision was preferred after many years that too without anyapplication for condonation of delay and held that, the learned S.D.O.had no jurisdiction to consider the grievance of the respondents onmerits without condoning the delay. Therefore, the orders passed wereheld to be nullity. Both the authorities did not consider the question ofdelay in spite of that being raised by the respondent therein. In thatview, this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orderspassed by the learned SDO, Additional District Collector, DivisionalCommissioner and consequently the order passed by the Hon'bleMinister.11.In the case of Vinaykumar Kachulal Abad (supra), this Courtheld that, in revision application was restricted to the issue regardingcondonation of delay. The Court considered the case of Chandrika JhaVs. State of Bihar reported in 1984 SCC (2) 41. The order passed by 8 of 11 9 wp 6665-2019.odtthe Hon’ble Minister came to be quashed and set aside.12.So far as the judgments relied upon by the respondent No. 6 areconcerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (D)Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (supra), considered that, the entry made by Patwariwas not recorded pursuant to any order passed by any competentauthority. The Patwari had no authority to enter the name of anyperson or confer any right. In that case, the dispute was of civil nature.Those can be challenged only on the ground that the same were takenfraudulently or surreptitiously. In that view the SLP came to bedismissed.13.In the case of Shri Nivruti G. Ahire (supra), this Court held that,when the main application for review itself is not maintainable in law,no question of condonation of delay in filing such application wouldarise. 14.Considering all above position, in this case, what this Courtnoticed is that, all the authorities had rightly held that there was delayin preferring the first revision before the learned SDO. The orderpassed by the learned SDO was correct. The learned SDO had clearlyobserved that, the revision application is made after many years. Therewas even no application for condonation of delay. It was further held 9 of 11 10 wp 6665-2019.odtthat, the respondent’s prayer was in respect of entries in revenue recordas successor and for ownership right and the said does not come withinthe jurisdiction of learned SDO. The said finding was confirmed by thelearned Additional Collector and by the learned DivisionalCommissioner. The Hon’ble Minister had considered the entrieswithout considering the aspect of delay. The order of allotment toSahebrao Dhondiba by the Government in the year 1960 wasconsidered. The Hon'ble Minister certainly has erred in going to thataspect when the main issue was entertainability of the revision by thelearned SDO on the ground of delay. This main aspect is notconsidered by the Hon’ble Minister.15.Considering all above, this Court has no hesitation in recordingthat, the Hon’ble Minister has committed an error in entertaining therevision and in setting aside the order passed by the learned AdditionalDivisional Commissioner, Nashik. One more factor that is brought tonotice is that, the parties are now litigating before the Civil Court. It istherefore clarified that, this order shall be subject to outcome of thecivil proceedings.16.With this, the writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayerclause (B). 10 of 11 11 wp 6665-2019.odt17.The writ petition stands disposed of . 18.Interim application, if any, also stand disposed of. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 11 of 11