VISHNU Vs. BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 6 th July, 1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, by which order the revision application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein came to be allowed and the revenue entries in question came to be set aside.

(2.) The facts necessary to be cited for decision in the above petition can be stated thus. The petitioner herein along with his brother Subhash Sanap claims to be in possession of Survey No.91/1, 91/2, admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas at Mouza Khalegaon, Taluka Lonar, District Buldhana. The said survey numbers were originally part of Survey No.91 owned by one Balwant Piraji Ingale and Ram Piraji Ingale. At present the said survey number bears Gat No.547.

(3.) It appears that Vithoba alias Anand Ingale i.e. the father of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with the respondent No.3 moved an application before the Naib Tahsildar, Lonar for correction of the entries in the crop statement for the years 1966 67 and 1967 68 inter alia claiming entries to be made qua Survey No.91/2, admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas. It appears that the proceedings were remitted back to the Naib Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and were registered as a case No.APP 5/3/1986 87, the Naib Tahsildar, Lonar rejected the said application of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and maintaining the name of the petitioner as the holder in the Revenue Record. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 thereafter challenged the said order before the Sub Divisional Officer, Mehkar by filing Revenue Appeal No.RCS 59/5/1991 92. The said appeal was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated 30 th June, 1992. Thereafter the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a further appeal which was numbered as Appeal No.RTN 59/Khalegaon/8/1991 92 before the Additional Collector, Buldhana, which was also dismissed by the Additional Collector by his order dated 31/03/1994. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of their appeal, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, which was numbered as Revision No.1/RTS/59/1994 95. The said revision came to be allowed by the impugned order and the Additional Commissioner set aside all the orders passed by the Courts below i.e. the authorities below in respect of the mutation entries in respect of Survey No.91/2. The gist of the reasoning of the Additional Commissioner was that the issue of title arises for consideration in the revenue proceedings and since it is not within the competence of the Revenue Courts to embark upon an exercise of deciding the title, and since the matter was sub judice before the Civil Court, the Additional Commissioner was of the view that it would be just and proper to maintain the status quo by setting aside all the orders and await the outcome of the civil proceedings.