Mallikarjun Sangappa Kalyani vs Dhullappa Madhavrao Biradar And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4259 Bom

                                      {1}                              wp8575-17

 drp
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO.8575 OF 2017

 Mallikarnun s/o Sangappa Kalyani                                 PETITIONER
 Age - 54 years, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Tagarkheda, Taluka - Nilanga
 District - Latur

          VERSUS

 1.       Dhullappa Madhavrao Biradar                         RESPONDENTS
          Age - 54 years, Occ - Agriculture
          R/o Tagarkheda, Taluka - Nilanga
          District - Latur

 2.       The Sub Divisional Officer, Nilanga
          Taluka - Nilanga, District - Latur

 3.       The Additional Collector, Latur
          Taluka and District - Latur

 4.       The Additional Commissioner,
          Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

                                .......

Mr. Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Y. G. Gujrathi, AGP for respondent - State .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 10th JULY, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. He submits that

on the basis of 1974 sale deed movement had been belatedly

made and mutation entry No. 2589 had been taken in favour of

{2} wp8575-17

purchaser. According to the instructions of learned advocate, the

sale deed had been nominal one and no actual transfer of title

had taken place. He further refers to that the Tahsildar and Sub

Divisional Officer in the first attempt had ruled against the

purchaser, however the Collector had remanded the matter and

after remand the Sub Divisional Officer, Nilanga had once again

cancelled Mutation Entry bearing No. 2589. However, his order

was set aside in the appeal therefrom at the instance of the

petitioner. A further appeal by petitioner had also failed before

appellate authority and so was the case in revision before the

State government. He submits that taking disadvantage of these

failures, his possession over suit land is getting disturbed at the

instance of respondents. He further fairly refers to that a civil

litigation questioning legality and validity of sale deed has been

instituted by petitioner, which is pending.

2. Learned advocate, therefore, urges for passing orders

facilitating his claimed possession over the suit property.

3. Countering aforesaid submissions, learned AGP refers to

that all the authorities hitherto have decided against the

petitioners. He submits that sale deed is a document inter vivos

and pursuant to the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue

{3} wp8575-17

Code, it is incumbent to take requisite entry in respect of such

registered instrument, which has accordingly been taken. He

further points out that not only decisions have been in favour of

the purchaser, but even the petitioner's attempt to have

temporary injunction issued against the purchase before civil

court has failed.

4. Looking at aforesaid and the nature of proceedings which

have been before the revenue authorities, which largely are

considered to have efficacy for fiscal purposes, it does not

appear to be a case wherein powers under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India are required to be invoked, while the

authorities have observed that fate of the entries would depend

on the decision in the civil court.

5. Writ petition, as such, is not entertained and is rejected

with no order as to costs.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/wp8575-17