NAVNATH SAHEBRAO GAIKWAD Vs. BHAUSAHEB DNYANOBA GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken for hearing and disposal.

(2.) The Petition challenges Order dtd. 4/10/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) allowing the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.1 and setting aside the order dtd. 13/11/2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division. The Additional Commissioner had dismissed the Revision Application preferred by Respondent No.1 by order dtd. 13/11/2019 and had confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Pune on 16/1/2019. The Additional Collector, in turn had partly allowed the Appeal preferred by Respondent No.1, but had refused to set aside the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) dtd. 5/3/2018, by which Mutation Entry No. 10384 was directed to be modified and name of Petitioner was directed to be mutated in respect of land admeasuring 0H 11.5 R.

(3.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Bala Gaikwad had two sons Rama and Goma. Goma's wife was Anusaya and it is claim of Anusaya that she had one half share in land bearing Gat No. 1294. Land bearing Gat No.1294 admeasured 23 R. and Anusaya claimed 50% share therein equivalent to 11.5 R. On the other hand, the heirs of Rama believed that Anusaya had already filed a suit for partition and had secured her share in various other lands, which did not include land bearing Gat No. 1294 and accordingly claimed 100% share in respect of land bearing Gat No. 1294. Under her belief that she is the owner land admeasuring 11.5 R., Anusaya executed sale deed dtd. 22/9/1999 in favour of the Petitioner. It appears that based on the sale deed dtd. 22/9/1999, Mutation Entry No. 4555 was attempted to be effected on 5/1/2000 recording the name of Petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 11.5 R. purchased vide sale deed dtd. 22/9/1999. It appears that Circle Officer refused to certify the said entry by order dtd. 5/8/2000 on the ground that name of Anusaya was never mutated to the concerned land. It appears that cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 4555 was never questioned by the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner got his name mutated once again to land admeasuring 11.5 R. on 15/1/2015 vide Mutation Entry No. 10329. Despite existence of sale deed dtd. 22/9/1999 by which Petitioner had purchased land admeasuring 11.5 R. and despite certification of Mutation Entry No. 10329 on 15/1/2015, Respondent No. 1 took the risk of entering into sale deed dtd. 6/4/2015 from the heirs of Rama by which Respondent No.1 purchased entire Gat No. 1294 admeasuring 23 R. Without canceling Mutation Entry No. 10329, first Mutation Entry No. 10384 was certified on 7/4/2015 mutating the name of Respondent No.1 in respect of entire are admeasuring 23 R. of Gat No. 1294. After mutation of the name of Respondent No.1 vide Mutation Entry No. 10384 on 7/4/2015, the Circle Officer proceeded to cancel Mutation Entry No. 10329 in respect of the Petitioner vide order dtd. 29/6/2015. Petitioner got aggrieved by certification of Mutation Entry No. 10384 and filed appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer under provisions of Sec. 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The SDO proceeded to allow the Appeal and directed modification of Mutation Entry No. 10384 by directing mutation of name of the Petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 11.5 R. Though Respondent No. 1 partly succeeded in his appeal before the Additional Collector vide order dtd. 16/1/2019, the Additional Collector did not direct deletion of name of Petitioner in respect of land bearing Gat No. 1294 but directed Mutation of name of the Petitioner only as a joint holder. This Divisional Commissioner confirmed the order of the Additional Collector on 13/11/2019. However, the Hon'ble Minister has allowed the Revision filed by Respondent No.1 and by impugned order dtd. 4/10/2023, has set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dtd. 13/11/2019 and has confirmed the Mutation Entry No. 10384. The order passed by the Hon'ble Minister on 4/10/2023 is subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.