1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2654 of 1994
1. Ramkishan s/o Rajeshwar Chintawar,
Age-42 years,
2. Vijayabai w/o late Rajabhau Chintawar,
Age-50 years,
3. Sanjay Rajabhau Chintawar,
Age-25 years,
4. Ajaykumar s/o Rajabhau Chintawar,
Age-21 years,
Occu-Agriculturist,
R/o of Dharmabad, Tal.Biloli,
Dist. Nanded -- PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Ramesh Papayya Chintawar,
Age-40 years (Deleted)
2. Sudhir Papayya Chintawar,
Age-38 years,
3. Sudarshan Papayya Chintawar,
Age-34 years,
4. Kishor Papayya Chintawar,
Age-32 years,
5. Papayya Rajeshwar Chintawar,
Age-50 years,
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 R/o.
Dharmabad, Tal.Biloli, Dist.Nanded.
6. State of Maharashtra, khs/JULY 2017/2654-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:23:00 ::: 2
7. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad,
8. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad,
9. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist.Nanded,
10. Tahsildar, Biloli, Tal.Biloli, Dist. Nanded. -- RESPONDENTS Mr.P.P.Mandlik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.T.Bhagat, AGP for respondent/State. Mr.S.V.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.2 to 5. Respondent No.1 is deleted.
( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.) DATE : 07/07/2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This matter is on the final hearing board from 04/01/2016 and has been adjourned for at least 6 times in the last 1 year.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 submit that there is no response from their clients.
3. Respondent Nos.6 to 10 are represented by the learned AGP. Respondent No.1 has already been deleted from the proceeding.
4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the khs/JULY 2017/2654-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:23:00 ::: 3 respondents.
5. The issue in this petition between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is as regards the mutation entry pertaining to the lands at issue. Respondent No.1 who is deleted by order dated 01/10/2010 alongwith respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor by filing an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar, Biloli dated 13/01/1990 certifying the mutation entry at Serial No.33 in respect of Survey No.209/A and 209/B. The grievance of these respondents was that the mutation entry was surreptitiously taken by the petitioners. The earlier mutation entry No.3140 dated 28/04/1988 was legal and proper indicating the possession of these respondents over their respective shares and the payment of land revenue till 1990-1991. The certificate issued by the Talathi on 07/10/1990 shows the disputed property in the name of these respondents.
6. The petitioners had contended that a partition took place in between these brothers i.e. the brothers of Papayya who is the father of the respondents. The partition deed was executed and on the basis of the same, the property was marked in the mutation entry no.3329 sanctioned on 31/01/2009.
khs/JULY 2017/2654-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:23:00 ::: 4
7. The record reveals that Papayya was originally the absolute owner. The respondents are sons of Papayya and they are close relatives of the petitioners. Papayya had submitted an application on the basis of a partition, before the Tahsildar. The mutation entry no.3329 was sanctioned apparently without issuing any notice to the previous owners i.e. the respondents herein.
8. This Court, in the matter of Shrikant R.Sankanwar and others Vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar [2003(3) Bom.C.R.45] has laid down the law on the following aspects :-
[a] Mutation entries are purely for fiscal purposes and they pertain to taxation within the domain of the revenue authorities.
[b] Mutation entries do not decide the right, title or interest of any party.
[c] The right, title or interest is to be decided only through proceedings before the competent Civil Court and the conclusions of the Civil Court would be binding upon the revenue authorities and not vis-a-vis. [d] Mutation entries are to be recorded after hearing the parties and on the basis of the best piece of evidence placed before the revenue authority.
9. In the instant case, the purported Photostat copy commonly khs/JULY 2017/2654-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:23:00 ::: 5 called as a xerox copy that was placed by the petitioners before the revenue authorities as their best piece of evidence, was firstly, a photostat copy, secondly, was not legible and thirdly, proper court fees stamp were not affixed. The issue that was raised was whether the said document should be termed as a partition deed or an exchange deed. If it is to be believed to be an exchange deed, the mandate of Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring registration of the document was not complied with.
10. It is in the above backdrop that respondent No.9 and respondent No.8 authorities have concurred with the finding that respondent No.10 Tahsildar, Biloli had committed an error in sanctioning the mutation entry No.3329 dated 13/01/1990. Similarly, respondent No.7 / the Additional Commissioner of Aurangabad, by the impugned judgment dated 01/03/1994, has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners u/s 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
11. This Court, after hearing the parties, had refused interim relief after the petition was admitted on 10/01/2003.
12. Considering the above, I do not find any merit in this petition. khs/JULY 2017/2654-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:23:00 ::: 6 Same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
13. It is, however, made clear that considering the law laid down in c ase Shrikant Sankanwar (supra), in the event the litigating sides approach the Civil Court for deciding their right, title and interest over the land at issue, the decision in the said suit would naturally be binding upon the revenue authorities in so far as the mutation entries are concerned. The said suit would be decided on its own merits and issue of delay would be considered in accordance with the law applicable.
( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.) khs/JULY 2017/2654-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:23:00 :::