Bombay High Court
The Tata Power Comany Limited vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 20 March, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:13015-DB
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2064 OF 2025
ATUL 1. The Tata Power Company Limited,
GANESH
KULKARNI a company incorporated under the
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913)
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.03.20
18:22:35 +0530
having its registered office at
Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street,
Fort, Mumbai 400 001 and having its
Regional Office at Lonavala,
Taluka Maval, District Pune.
2. Vispi Sarosh Patel,
Age 50 years, Shareholder,
The Tata Power Company Limited,
24, Bombay House, Homi Mody Street,
Mumbai 400 001 ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
it's Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
2. Tehsildar, Mulshi (Paud),
The Office of Tehsildar, Mulshi (Paud),
District Pune.
3. Ranjit Bhosale, Tehsildar,
The Office of Tehsildar, Mulshi (Paud),
District Pune.
4. Circle Officer, Pomgaon,
Taluka Mulshi, District Pune
5. Vishnu Chindu Dhore,
An Adult individual inhabitant,
Residing at Pomgaon, Taluka Mulshi
District Pune ... Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2025 22:19:48 :::
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhushan
Deshmukh, Mr. H.N. Vakil, Mr. Samkit Shah and Mr.
Farhad Vakil i/by Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt &
Caroe for the petitioners.
Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional G.P. with Ms. Tanu Bhatia,
AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 - State.
Mr. Tejesh Dande with Mr. Bharat Gachavi, Ms. Trushna
Shah, Mr. Sarvesh Deshpande, Mr. Vinayak Shelar, Ms.
Mansi Dande and Mr. Pratik Sabrad i/by Mr. Bharat
Gadhavi for respondent No.5.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 10, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 20, 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The present writ petition is instituted by the petitioners
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality,
validity, and propriety of the order dated 30th October 2024, along
with the consequential Mutation Entry No. 3458, as recorded in
the revenue records pursuant to the said order. The impugned
order, dated 30th October 2024, directs the deletion of the
petitioners' names from the revenue records in respect of the
property bearing Survey No. 333, situated at Village Kongaon,
Taluka Mulshi, which was previously identified as Survey No. 127
(part) of Village Mulapur, and measures approximately 19.29 acres
in total.
2. The material facts leading to the filing of the present petition
are as follows: Petitioner No. 1 acquired a portion of the subject
property, ad-measuring 4.04 acres, through a registered
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
conveyance deed executed by the then State Government between
the years 1929 and 1936. Additionally, another portion of the
subject property, ad-measuring 12.24 acres, was granted in favor
of Petitioner No. 1 under the provisions of Section 117B of the
erstwhile Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The legal effect of
the said grant under the said provision is that the petitioner
derived possessory as well as proprietary rights over the said land,
which were duly reflected in the revenue records. Notably, in the
year 1929, Survey No. 127 (part) of Village Mulapur was merged
with Village Kongaon, thereby being renumbered as Survey No.
333 of Village Kongaon. A separate 7/12 extract was accordingly
issued, wherein the name of Petitioner No. 1 was duly recorded for
an area of 15.24 acres, as granted under Section 117B of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The portion of 4.04 acres
formed part of Survey No. 4/Mulapur/1, which was a part of a
larger tract of 217 acres acquired by Petitioner No. 1 from the
State Government, which came to be known as Tata Talao.
3. On 10th October 1936, a registered conveyance deed was
executed in favor of Petitioner No. 1 by the then State Government
in respect of various lands, including the land ad-measuring 4.04
acres, thereby further strengthening the proprietary rights of the
petitioners. The execution of this registered conveyance is a
significant factor, as it confers indefeasible legal title upon the
petitioners, which cannot be disturbed except in accordance with
due process of law.
4. In the year 1939, Survey No. 333 underwent sub-division,
resulting in the creation of Survey No. 333 (part), ad-measuring
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
12.24 acres. The said sub-division was duly recorded in the 7/12
extract in the name of Petitioner No. 1, further confirming its
possession and ownership over the subject land. At the same time,
the name of one Dhondu Gopal Dhore was recorded for an area of
1.22 hectares in respect of Survey No. 333/1.
5. It is an undisputed position that from the year 1939 up until
the year 2010, Petitioner No. 1 was in uninterrupted, peaceful, and
continuous possession of the land ad-measuring 12.24 acres, which
remained consistently reflected in the revenue records, as
evidenced by successive 7/12 extracts. On 5th May 2010, Mutation
Entry No. 2723 was recorded in respect of Survey No. 333 (part),
correcting the name of Petitioner No. 1-Company in the revenue
records.
6. In January 2014, in order to ascertain the precise extent and
boundaries of their land, the petitioners undertook a survey by
M.R. No. 10797 of 2014. Upon completion of the said survey, the
petitioners proceeded to fence their property, an action that was
carried out without any objection from any authority or third party.
The absence of any challenge or opposition at the time of fencing
further reinforces the petitioners' claim of exclusive possession.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that on 10th August 2022,
respondent No.5 preferred an application before the office of the
Tahsildar, invoking the provisions of Section 155 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLRC"), seeking
correction of an alleged clerical error in the revenue records. It is
further contended that on 19th August 2022, respondent No.5, by
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
way of an authorization, empowered one Vijay Nathur Mirkute to
represent him in the proceedings before the revenue authorities.
The petitioners have brought on record that they have ongoing
litigation with the said Vijay Nathur Mirkute concerning other
parcels of land situated in Village Shedani.
8. It is further the case of the petitioners that, on 25th January
2023, respondent No.5 executed a registered conveyance deed in
respect of land bearing Survey No.333/1 of Village Pomgaon in
favour of four individuals. The said transaction was duly recorded
in the revenue records by way of Mutation Entry No.3365.
9. Thereafter, on 15th May 2023 and 25th June 2024, the
Tahsildar, Mulshi (respondent No.2) issued notices of hearing in
relation to the application preferred under Section 155 of the
MLRC. However, it is pertinent to note that, on 19th July 2025,
respondent No.5 submitted another application before the
Tahsildar stating that certain discrepancies had crept into the areas
mentioned in his earlier application dated 10th August 2022. By
way of the said application, respondent No.5 sought cancellation
of his previous application and requested that his written
submissions dated 19th July 2024 be treated as his application
under Section 155 of the MLRC.
10. On the very same day, i.e., 19th July 2024, respondent No.5
submitted separate written submissions wherein he altered the
basis of his original application dated 10th August 2022. However,
it is significant to observe that, despite such material changes in
his claim, no supporting documentary evidence was furnished by
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
respondent No.5 to substantiate his alleged title over the subject
property. In response, on 30th July 2024, petitioner No.1 filed an
application seeking copies of nine documents, which were
purportedly relied upon by respondent No.5 in his application.
However, only five out of the nine requested documents were
supplied to the petitioners. Subsequently, on 12th August 2024,
the petitioners filed detailed written submissions opposing the
purported application under Section 155 of the MLRC. It is also
borne out from the record that, on 23rd August 2024, the roznama
indicated that the matter under Section 155 stood closed for
orders.
11. It further transpires that, on 3rd October 2024, respondent
No.2 directed respondent No.4 to conduct a panchnama in respect
of Survey No.333, admeasuring 12 acres and 24 gunthas, to
ascertain the possession of the said land. However, no prior notice
or intimation was issued to the petitioners in respect of the said
proceedings. The record reflects that, solely on the basis of the
statement made by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 proceeded
with the panchnama without affording any opportunity to the
petitioners to participate in the said process. Thereafter, on 9th
October 2024, respondent No.4 submitted his report to respondent
No.2, and acting upon the said report, respondent No.2 proceeded
to pass the impugned order dated 30th October 2024. By way of
the said order, the name of the petitioners was deleted from the
7/12 extract of the subject property and, in their place, the name
of one Dhondu Gopal Dhore was recorded in the revenue records.
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
12. The petitioners contend that the impugned order dated 30th
October 2024 was served upon petitioner No.1 only on 2nd
January 2025 and was given effect to on 6th January 2025.
However, despite the mandate under the Government Resolution
dated 18th January 2022, requiring publication of such orders on
the official website, the impugned order was not uploaded in the
public domain. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners
have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition,
assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed
by respondent No.2.
13. That on 18th February 2025, this Court, upon considering
the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties, was
pleased to grant an ad-interim order, thereby granting relief in
terms of prayer clause (b) and directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to
effect deletion of Mutation Entry No. 3458 in the 7/12 extract. It is
pertinent to note that the said order dated 18th February 2025 was
passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned
parties, including the learned Assistant Government Pleader
representing the official respondents. Despite the order being
passed after due deliberation, the petitioners, by their
communication dated 20th February 2025, informed respondent
No.2 about the order and requested compliance thereof. However,
respondent No.2, for reasons best known to it, failed to act in
furtherance of the said judicial directive, thereby necessitating
further intervention by this Court.
14. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the impugned
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
order dated 30th October 2024, passed by respondent No.2
purportedly in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 155
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred
to as "MLRC"), is wholly misconceived and patently without
jurisdiction. He has meticulously drawn attention to the
applications dated 10th August 2022 and 19th July 2024, on the
basis of which the said order was passed, and has pointed out that
the same was in effect a challenge to the deletion of the name of
respondent No.5's grandfather from the 7/12 extract, which event
had taken place as far back as in the year 1939. He has strenuously
urged that the scope of Section 155 of the MLRC is limited to the
correction of "clerical errors" and does not extend to entertaining
challenges to entries made several decades ago, particularly when
no cogent material was placed on record to substantiate any
purported clerical mistake.
15. It has been further submitted by Mr. Godbole that the
application seeking rectification of the alleged clerical error was
wholly devoid of any supporting documentary evidence. He has
questioned the very basis upon which such an application was
preferred in the year 2022 for an alleged error that, according to
respondent No.5, occurred in the year 1939. He has further
contended that the proceedings under Section 155 of the MLRC
were closed for orders on 23rd August 2024, yet, surprisingly, on
3rd October 2024, the Tahsildar, in an inexplicable exercise of
discretion, directed the Circle Officer to carry out a panchnama of
the subject property. Pursuant to the said direction, the Circle
Officer conducted a panchnama on 9th October 2024, recording
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
the statement of respondent No.5 and concluding that respondent
No.5 was in possession of the subject property. He has asserted
that such an action, being in clear violation of the principles of
natural justice and fair play, cannot be sustained in law.
16. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Advocate
has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum (died)
through Legal Representatives & Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 346],
wherein it has been categorically held that a correction
purportedly made under the garb of rectifying a clerical error
cannot, under any circumstances, be treated as falling within the
scope of a mere clerical correction. He has emphasized that the
impugned order dated 30th October 2024 is legally unsustainable,
as the very exercise of jurisdiction by respondent No.2 was
impermissible in law.
17. The learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the
purported correction of the clerical error was vitiated by mala fides
and was undertaken in collusion with respondent No.5. He has
brought to the attention of this Court the questionable conduct of
the official respondents, particularly in appointing the Circle
Officer after the matter was closed for orders, directing the
preparation of a panchnama without any notice to the petitioner,
while respondent No.5 was present at the subject property despite
the record not reflecting issuance of any notice to him. He has also
drawn attention to the failure of the respondents to upload the
impugned order dated 30th October 2024 on the government
portal, as mandated by the Government Resolution dated 18th
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
January 2022, which requires uploading of such orders on the
same day of their passing. Further, despite the clear and
categorical order of this Court dated 18th February 2025 directing
the deletion of Mutation Entry No. 3458, the respondents failed to
implement the same, despite being represented before this Court
through their learned advocates. He has pointed out the affidavits
filed by respondent No.3 and respondent No.5, both affirmed on
4th January 2025, which, according to him, bear striking
similarities inasmuch as 11 paragraphs of both affidavits are
identical, which cannot be a mere coincidence, but rather an
indicator of collusion. In support of his submission that such
exercise of power in collusion with a private party warrants action
against respondent No.3, he has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan [(1993)
2 SCC 56].
18. Per contra, Mr. Samant, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, has submitted that the direction issued by this Court on
18th February 2025 has been duly complied with by the
respondents on 11th March 2025. He has contended that the
petitioners were afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing until
30th August 2024. However, he has candidly admitted that the
inspection report was prepared in the absence of the petitioners
and without issuing any prior notice to them. In view of the
aforesaid, he has submitted that this Court may be pleased to pass
appropriate orders relegating the parties to the position as it stood
on 30th August 2024, with a direction to respondent No.3 to
conduct further proceedings afresh, in accordance with law.
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
19. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has further
submitted that under Section 155 of the MLRC, respondent No.3
possesses the authority to correct errors detected during the course
of an inspection. In support of his submission, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Western Coalfields Limited, through its Area General Manager v.
Tahsildar, Kamptee & Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine Bombay 2309] and
Vijayalaxmi Shrinivas Panditrao v. Deputy Conservator of Forests &
Ors. [2023 SCC OnLine Bombay 1739]. He has submitted that the
impugned order was passed on account of respondent No.3
forming an opinion that petitioner No.1-Company had failed to
produce any documentary evidence demonstrating that, out of the
total land admeasuring 15 acres 24 gunthas situated in Village
Kongaon, an area of 12 acres 24 gunthas was actually transferred
to petitioner No.1-Company from the erstwhile owner. He has,
therefore, urged that this Court may be pleased to relegate the
parties to the position as on 30th August 2024.
20. Mr. Dande, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.5,
has submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any
conclusive documentary evidence to substantiate its claim that
land admeasuring 12 acres 24 gunthas was actually transferred to
petitioner No.1-Company by the previous owner. He has
accordingly contended that respondent No.3 has rightly exercised
jurisdiction under Section 155 of the MLRC, and no interference
with the impugned order is warranted by this Court.
21. Rival contentions now fall for determination before this
Court.
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
22. Upon meticulous examination of the record and the written
submissions tendered by the respective parties, the principal issue
that emerges for adjudication is whether the deletion of the name
of petitioner No.1 from the 7/12 extract, pertaining to the land
admeasuring 15 acres and 24 gunthas, falls within the purview of
the power vested under Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLRC"). It is imperative to analyze whether
such deletion constitutes a mere clerical correction or partakes the
character of a substantive alteration, which is beyond the scope of
the said provision.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Telangana
Housing Board v. State of Telangana (supra), had the occasion to
consider the interpretation of the expression "clerical error" under
the provisions of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana
Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317. In the factual matrix of the said
case, the correction sought to be effected pertained to the
measurement of the area of Survey No.1009. The Supreme Court,
in unequivocal terms, observed that if a correction leads to the
generation of a legal contention or an arguable point, such an
exercise transcends the ambit of a mere clerical correction and
instead assumes the nature of a substantive rectification, which
would not fall within the purview of Section 87 of the said Act.
The ratio of this judgment would squarely apply to the case at
hand, wherein the deletion of petitioner No.1's name from the
revenue records is not a mere typographical or inadvertent mistake
but has significant legal implications affecting substantive rights.
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
24. Further, the Supreme Court, in the case of Tata Consulting
Engineers v. Workman Employed and Vice-Versa [(1980) SCC
(Supp) 627 : AIR 1981 SC 1088], elucidated the scope of an
accidental slip or omission. The Hon'ble Court expounded that a
clerical error is one that pertains to an unintended mistake, where
what was actually meant to be recorded was not so recorded due
to inadvertence. It was held that a clerical error refers to an aspect
that the Court never intended to include and which does not
require any fresh interpretation, argument, or disputation.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court distinguished between an
"arithmetical error," which refers to an error in computation, and a
"clerical error," which pertains to a mistake in writing or
transcription. The principles enunciated therein are germane to the
present case, inasmuch as the deletion of the name of petitioner
No.1 from the revenue records is not merely a rectification of an
inadvertent error but involves a substantive adjudication on the
title and ownership of the land, which is beyond the remit of
Section 155 of the MLRC.
25. Turning to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the
impugned order reveals that the exercise undertaken by the
concerned authorities was to remove the name of petitioner No.1,
which had been entered in the revenue records since the year
1939, on the ostensible ground that petitioner No.1 had failed to
produce documentary evidence to establish the source of
acquisition of title concerning the land admeasuring 12 acres and
24 gunthas. The applications dated 10 August 2022 and 19 July
2024, submitted by respondent No.5, make it abundantly clear
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
that the true intent behind the said applications was to challenge
the deletion of the name of respondent No.5's grandfather from
the 7/12 extract, which had occurred way back in 1939. Such a
challenge, raised under the guise of an application for clerical
correction under Section 155 of the MLRC, is legally untenable,
particularly when made after an inordinate delay of more than
eight decades.
26. The legal infirmity in respondent No.5's case is further
accentuated by the categorical admission in paragraph 11 of his
affidavit-in-reply, wherein he concedes that the name of his
grandfather was removed from the 7/12 extract in the year 1939,
pursuant to a grant made under Section 117B of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, 1879 ("BLRC"). This unequivocal admission
demolishes the very foundation of respondent No.5's claim, as it
establishes that the removal of the name was effected by the
revenue authorities in accordance with law, and the same has
remained unchallenged for over 80 years. In such circumstances,
the application purportedly filed under Section 155 of the MLRC is
manifestly misconceived and an abuse of process of law.
27. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that respondent No.5 has
failed to produce any document to substantiate the claim that the
name of his grandfather was erroneously deleted in 1939. The
impugned proceedings, initiated without any tangible
documentary evidence, are legally unsustainable. Additionally, the
manner in which the panchanama was conducted raises serious
procedural irregularities. It is evident that the authorities
proceeded to undertake the panchanama without issuing notice to
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
the petitioners, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Conversely, respondent No.5, whose statement was recorded on
the day of the inspection, was also not formally noticed for the
said exercise. This glaring procedural lapse raises concerns about
the fairness and transparency of the entire process and gives rise to
a strong inference that the proceedings were orchestrated with
ulterior motives.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is patently clear that
the impugned order is vitiated by legal infirmities, procedural
irregularities, and jurisdictional overreach. The deletion of
petitioner No.1's name from the revenue records does not fall
within the domain of a clerical correction under Section 155 of the
MLRC but instead pertains to substantive adjudication of rights,
which is impermissible under the guise of a mere rectification.
Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is
liable to be set aside.
29. The pivotal question that now necessitates judicial
determination is whether the conduct of respondent No.3 warrants
an inquiry in terms of the well-established parameters enunciated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.K.
Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
pronouncement has unequivocally held that disciplinary
proceedings can be initiated against a government servant even in
matters where he exercises quasi-judicial functions, provided
certain conditions are satisfied. The Court laid down the following
instances wherein disciplinary action would be justified:
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
"(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would
reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or
devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or
misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a
Government Servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the
prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of
the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however
small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago
"though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great"."
30. The legal rationale underlying the aforementioned principles
is to ensure that public officials entrusted with statutory and quasi-
judicial responsibilities discharge their functions with utmost
fidelity, fairness, and accountability. The Courts have consistently
maintained that while adjudicatory independence is sacrosanct, it
cannot be construed as a shield for arbitrariness, collusion, or mala
fide actions that vitiate the rule of law. The doctrine of public trust
mandates that any deviation from these principles must be
subjected to judicial scrutiny.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while laying down the above-
stated parameters, also made it amply clear that the instances
catalogued therein are not exhaustive but merely illustrative. The
Court further clarified that disciplinary action cannot be initiated
merely on the basis of technical violations or erroneous orders
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
unless such actions squarely fall within the instances enumerated
above. The fundamental premise for initiating an inquiry in such
cases is the presence of mala fides, gross negligence, recklessness,
or conduct unbecoming of a public servant.
32. Thus, in the factual matrix of the present case, the pertinent
question that arises for adjudication is whether the conduct of
respondent No.3 falls within the ambit of any of the categories
delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Upon a careful analysis
of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the actions
of respondent No.3, on a prima facie evaluation, fall squarely
within categories (iv) and (v) of the judgment in K.K. Dhawan
(supra). This conclusion is fortified by the following
considerations, which are demonstrative of respondent No.3's
deliberate deviation from the prescribed statutory framework and
his concerted effort to confer an undue advantage upon
respondent No.5.
33. The most glaring and disturbing aspect of this case, which
unmistakably points to a concerted and collusive design between
respondent No.3 and respondent No.5, is the striking similarity in
the affidavits filed by both respondents on the very same day, i.e.,
4 March 2025. The petitioners have meticulously compiled and
presented a comparative chart in their written submissions,
highlighting verbatim similarities in the pleadings of respondent
No.3 and respondent No.5, which is extracted below:
Affidavit in Reply of Affidavit in Reply of
Respondent No.5 Respondent No.3
6. FACTUAL ASPECTS 3. I say that the relevant facts
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
SHOWING CLERICAL ERROR: for the purpose of subject matter
of the present case are
I further say that the Survey summarized as under:-
No.127 (old) is now numbered
as Survey No.333 (new). I a) That the Survey No.127
further say that the total area (old) of Village Mulapur is now
measurement of the said Survey numbered as Survey No.333 (new)
No.127 (Old) is 19 Acres and 28 of Village Pomgaon. Further the
Gunthas. total area measurement of the said
Survey No.127 (old) is 19 Acres
and 28 Gunthas.
7. I further say that the b) That the aforesiand land
aforesaid land was originally was originally owned by one
owned by one Vishnu Gopal Vishnu Gopal Deshpande and
Deshpande and Vinayak Gopal Vinayak Gopal Deshpande.
Deshpande, however, the name However, the name of Vishnu
of Vishnu Gopal Deshpande Gopal Deshpande appears to have
appears to have been deleted been deleted and as his legal heir
and as his legal heir only one only one name was reflecting i.e.
name was reflecting i.e. Vinayak Vinayak Gopal Deshpande, Hence,
Gopal Deshpande, Hence, the the entire Survey No.127 was
entire Survey No.127 was belonging to Vinayak Gopal
belonging to Vinayak Gopal Deshpande till 1936.
Deshpande till 1936.
8. I further say that in year c) That in year 1936 the land
1936, part of the land came to be came to be acquired or a project
acquired for a project run by Tata run by Tata Power for constructing
Power for constructing a dam. a dam. The record clearly indicates
The record clearly indicates that that the Tata Power company
the Tata Power company acquired a land admeasuring only
acquired a land admeasuring 4 Acres and 4 Gunthas from the
only 4 Acres and 4 Gunthas from said Survey No.127. In order to
the said Survey No.127. In the ascertain the said aspect, copy of
Conveyance Deed, the copy of Conveyance Deed copy of Award
Land Acquisition award passed in passed in the year 1936 is also
the year 1936 is also enclosed. annexed. The Conveyance Deed
The Conveyance Deed was was executed on 10.10.1936 and
executed on 10.10.1936 and the the Conveyance Deed as well as
Conveyance Deed as well as the the Award clearly indicate that
Award clearly indicate that Tata Tata Power company i.e. the
Power company i.e. the Petitioner is having ownership/
Petitioner is having ownership/ Acquisition only limited to the
Acquisition only limited to the extent of 4 Acres and 4 Gunthas of
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
extent of 4 Acres and 4 Gunthas land in the original Survey No.127
of land. (Old) in Village Mulapur.
9. I further say that after d) That the record indicates
acquiring 4 Acres and 4 Gunthas, that the land i.e. 4 Acres and 4
the balance area of the land i.e. Gunthas which was acquired by
15 Acres 24 Gunthas was Tata Power Company was from
mutated in the name of Vinayak Gopal Deshpande. After
Respondent No.5's predecessor acquiring 4 Acres and 4 Gunthas,
Dhondu Gopal Dhore by the balance area of the land i.e. 15
Mutation Entry No.55. The 7/12 Acres 24 Gunthas. It appears that
extract for the year 1928-1929 later on it was mutated in the
reflects that Dhondu Gopal name of Dhondu Gopal Dhore by
Dhore is the occupier of the said Mutation Entry No.55. The 7/12
remaining 15 Acres 24 Gunthas extract for the year 1928-1929
of the land from Survey No.127. reflects that Dhondu Gopal Dhore
is the occupier of the said
remaining 15 Acres 24 Gunthas of
the land from Survey No.127.
10. I further say that the said e) That the said Mutation Entry
Mutation Entry on the name of of Dhondu Gopal Dhore was
Dhondu Gopal Dhore was continued till 1939. The 7/12
continued till 1939. The 7/12 extradt of 1939 is available in the
extract of 1939 is available in the Petition which is at page 85 which
Petition which is at page number clearly reflects that Dhondu Gopal
85 which clearly reflects that Dhore's name was maintained till
Dhondu Gopal Dhore's name was 1939.
maintained till 1939.
11. I further say that after f) That after 1939, the name of
1939, the name of Dhondu Gopal Dhondu Gopal Dhore appears to
Dhore appears to have been be removed from the Revenue
removed from the Revenue Records by applying provisions
Records by applying provisions under Section 117B of the Bombay
under section 117B of the Land Revenue Code, 1879. Perusal
Bombay Land Revenue Code, of provision 117B reveals that
1879 which is attracted when whenever an owner of a particular
someone fails to pay revenue land fails to pay revenue charges
taxes/charges for particular land, for particular land, the collector
the collector has the power to has the power to remove his name
remove his name from the from the Revenue Records. Thus,
Revenue Records. Thus, by by applying the said provision the
applying the said provision, the name of Dhondu Gopal Dhore
name of Dhondu Gopal Dhore appears to have been removed
appears to have been removed from the land record.
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
from the land record.
12. I further say that the g) That record also indicates
record also indicates that there is that there is absolutely no
absolutely no pherphar/mutation Mutation Entry or Order by
entry/order or noting by the Revenue officer, thereby specifying
Revenue Officer thereby that Section 117B of the Bombay
specifying why Section 117B of Land Revenue Code, 1879 was
the Bombay Land Revenue Code, applied. The records are
1879 is applied and why the completely silent in this regard.
name of Dhondu Gopal Dhore is Therefore, it is not clear on what
removed. The records are basis, name of Dhondu Gopal
completely silent in the said Dhore was removed from the
regard. revenue records, in respect of area
of 12 Acre 24 R. As such it is not
clear as to what procedure was
followed for showing the area of
12 Acre 24 R in the name of the
Petitioner Company in Survey
No.333 part (Old Survey No.127)
of Village Pomgaon.
13. I further say that the said That the said situation continued
situation continued till 1965. The till 1965. The 7/12 extract till
7/12 extract till 1965 reflects 1965 reflects that the effectof
that the effet of Section 117B of Section 117B of the Bombay Land
the Bombay Land Revenue Code, Revenue Code, 1879 was given in
1879 was given in Survey Survey No.127 (Old) which is now
No.127 (Old). Ultimate numbered as Survey No.333
consequence of applying 117B (new). Ultimate consequence of
against Dhondu Gopal Dhore is appying 117B against Dhondu
that only one name i.e. of Tata Gopal Dhore is that name of Tata
Power Company, who was owner Power Company was shown in the
of land admeasuring 4 Acres 4 Revenue Record.
Gunthas, was shown in the entire
Revenue Record of Survey
No.127 (old).
14. I further say that this i) That this appears to be the
appears to be the genuine real and genuine mistake on the
mistake on the part of Revenue part of Revenue Officers that by
Officers that by removing the removing the name of Dhondu
name of Dhondu Gopal Dhore by Gopal Dhore by applying section
applying section 117B, the 117B, the Revenue officers have
Revenue officers have maintained only one name that is
maintained only one name that of Tata Power for the entire Survey
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
is of Tata Power for the entire No.127 (old) and Survey No.333
Survey No.127 (old). It is (new) without any basis. It is
required to be noted that in required to be noted that in Survey
Survey No.127 (old) the Tata o127 (old) the Tata Power
Power company would be Company would be eligible and
eligible and entitled to own, hold entitled to hold and possess/own a
and possess a land admeasuring land admeasuring 4 Acres and 4
4 Acres and 4 gunthas and not gunthas and not beyond that.
beyond that. However, due to However, the record was changed
aforesaid clerical error, the in such manner that the Survey
record was changed in such No.127 (old) was shown to have
manner that the entire Survey been owned by Tata Power
No.127 (old) admeasuring 19 company. This probably is the
Acres and 28 Gunthas was error committed in the record.
shown to have been owned by
Tata Power company. This
mistake/error committed in the
record requires rectification.
15. I further say admittedly j) That admitted even going by
even going by the case of the the case of the Petitioner who is
Petitioner i.e. the Tata Power claiming their ownership only by
Company as pleaded by the virtue of acquisition and the Award
Petitioner before the Revenue passed in the 1936, which means
Officers as well as in the present that by no stretch of imagination
Writ Petition, it is abundantly the Petitioner can claim their right
clear that the Petitioner being beyond 4 Acre and 4 Gunthas on
Tata Power Company is claiming the property of the Respondent
their ownership only by virtue of No.5. Therefore, when it is
acquisition and the award passed considered that Survey No.127
in 1936, which means that by no (old) is totally admeasuring 19
stretch of imagination the Acres and 28 Gunthas, in that
Petitioner can claim their right event the balance land of 15 Acres
beyone 4 Acre and 4 Gunthas in and 24 Gunthas is bound to
old Survey No.127. Therefore, remain in possession, occupation
when it is considered that Survey and cultivation of the local farmers
No.127 (old) is totally i.e. the Respondent No.5 being
admeasuring 19 Acres and 28 Dhondu Gopal Dhore and his legal
Gunthas, in that event the heirs.
balance land of 15 Acres and 24
Gunthas is bound to remain in
possession, occupation and
cultivation of the farmer i.e. the
Respondent No.5 being Dhondu
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
Gopal Dhore and his legal heirs.
16. I further say that in order k) That in Order to support the
to support the aforesaid aforesaid contention the
contention the Aakarband Aakarband prepared for Tata Talav
prepared for Tata Power Village as well as Aakarband
Company as well as Aakarband prepared for the Village Pomgaon
for the village Pongaon for the for the purpose of farmers would
purpose of farmers would clearly clearly reflect that the Petitioner
reflect that the Petitioner company is only concerned with 1
company is only concerned with hector 66 R (which is equal to 4
1 hector 66 R which is equal to 4 Acre and 4 Gunthas). Further, the
Acre and 4 Gunthas. Further, the Aakarband for farmers would also
Aakarband for farmers would reflect that 6 H 21 R of land is
also reflect that 6 H 21 R of land recorded in the name of farmer i.e.
is recorded in the name of the Dhore family. Copies of
farmer i.e. the Dhore family. The Aakarband prepared by Tata Talao
copies of Aakarband prepared for Village and Village Pomgaon are
Tata Power and Village Pomgaon hereto annexed and marked as
are hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "A".
as Exhibit "A- colly".
34. Such similarities, in their sheer magnitude and specificity,
cannot be attributed to mere coincidence. Rather, they lend
credence to the inescapable inference that respondent No.3 and
respondent No.5 have acted in connivance to achieve a
predetermined outcome.
35. It appears from the record that even after the proceedings
were closed for orders, respondent No.3, in an unusual exercise of
discretion, called for a report from the Circle Officer. This act,
undertaken without any intimation to the petitioners, raises
serious concerns about procedural fairness and adherence to the
principles of natural justice. The petitioners were neither notified
about the visit of the Circle Officer nor afforded an opportunity to
present their case regarding the findings recorded therein. On the
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
other hand, though there is no indication on record that a formal
notice was issued to respondent No.5, it is evident that he was
present on 3rd October 2024 and his statement was recorded on
the said date. The unexplained presence of respondent No.5,
particularly when the petitioners remained unaware of the
proceedings, gives rise to a reasonable inference that respondent
No.5 was privy to special circumstances which do not find support
from the official record. Such conduct on the part of respondent
No.3 is suggestive of a lack of transparency and fairness in the
decision-making process, thereby violating the principles of natural
justice.
36. Furthermore, respondent No.3 has failed to furnish any
cogent explanation as to how respondent No.5 was present on 3rd
October 2024 despite the absence of any formal notice issued to
him. The silence on this crucial aspect casts a serious shadow on
the credibility of the proceedings conducted by respondent No.3.
Additionally, an aspect of material concern is the striking similarity
between the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.3 and
respondent No.5. A perusal of the said affidavits reveals that
eleven paragraphs therein are identical in wording, suggesting that
the content was either dictated or influenced by a common source.
This raises grave doubts about the independence and impartiality
of the response tendered by respondent No.3, who, as a quasi-
judicial authority, was duty-bound to act fairly and objectively.
37. The manner in which the power under Section 159 of the
relevant enactment has been exercised by respondent No.3
appears to be manifestly in excess of the authority conferred under
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
the statute. The Supreme Court, in Telangana Housing Board
(supra), has categorically laid down that statutory powers must be
exercised strictly in accordance with the prescribed framework,
failing which such exercise would be rendered ultra vires. The
facts on record indicate that the deletion of the petitioners' names
from the relevant records was not a mere clerical correction but an
adjudicatory exercise that necessitated a proper inquiry. However,
respondent No.3 proceeded with the deletion on the basis of an
application filed belatedly in the year 2022 for an alleged error
that purportedly occurred as far back as the year 1939. The
absence of any plausible explanation from respondent No.5 as to
why such an application was moved after a lapse of more than
eight decades further compounds the suspicion surrounding the
entire proceeding. Respondent No.3, while initially accepting the
alleged error as clerical, has failed to record any findings as to
what was originally intended by the Authority in the year 1936 but
was purportedly not carried out, thereby leading to the alleged
error. This absence of a reasoned determination vitiates the very
basis of the decision taken by respondent No.3.
38. The material placed before this Court, particularly the
striking similarities in the affidavits and the absence of any cogent
justification from respondent No.3, establishes a strong prima facie
case of undue favoritism and procedural impropriety. This is not a
case of a mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction but one where
respondent No.3 has, by his own actions, subverted the process of
law to extend an undue benefit to respondent No.5. Such conduct,
if left unchecked, would erode public confidence in the sanctity of
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
administrative decision-making and would set a dangerous
precedent where statutory authorities can collude with private
parties to defeat the ends of justice.
39. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, and having due
regard to the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in K.K. Dhawan (supra), wherein it has been held that an
administrative or quasi-judicial authority must act in a bona fide
manner and in accordance with law, it becomes imperative that an
inquiry is instituted into the conduct of respondent No.3. Given the
apparent procedural irregularities, lack of transparency, and the
questionable exercise of discretion by respondent No.3, it is
necessary that the Principal Secretary (Revenue), State of
Maharashtra, appoint an officer of higher rank to conduct a
detailed inquiry into the role and conduct of respondent No.3
concerning the subject matter of the present writ petition. The
findings of such an inquiry would ensure accountability and serve
as a deterrent against any arbitrary or extraneous exercise of
statutory powers.
40. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons
recorded hereinabove, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the
following directions:
(a) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 30th
October 2024, passed by respondent No.3 in RTS
No.155/530 of 2022, along with the consequential Mutation
Entry No.3458, is hereby quashed and set aside.
wp2064-2025-J-F.doc
(b) The Principal Secretary (Revenue), State of
Maharashtra, shall appoint an officer of higher rank to
conduct a detailed inquiry into the role and conduct of
respondent No.3 concerning the subject matter of the
present writ petition..
(c) The said inquiry shall be concluded expeditiously and,
in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date of
this Judgment. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, a detailed
compliance report indicating the findings thereof shall be
placed before this Court on or before 5th May 2025.
(d) The parties are at liberty to seek further directions in
the event of non-compliance or upon filing of the compliance
report.
(e) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
41. List the writ petition for compliance on 8 May 2025.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
