Bombay High Court
Ramkishan Rajeshwar Chintawar vs Ramesh Papayya Chintawar on 7 July, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
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
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
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
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
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
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
