53 WP No.1235.2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1235 OF 2016 VANDANA VIVEK NAIKAWADI VERSUS ADDL COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD DIVISION AURANGABAD AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant B. Choudhari AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. R. B. Dhaware Advocate for Respondents No. 4, 5 and 7 : Mr. V. S. Undre (VC) Advocate for Respondent No. 6 : Mr. P. K. Deshmukh … WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8309 OF 2016 …. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Date : 4th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for respective sides. 2. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners raised an exception to the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in file No. ROR/REV/PT/126/2012 and order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Minister. 2026:BHC-AUG:9996 53 WP No.1235.2016 -2- 3. The learned counsel for both sides submit that Respondents No. 6 and 7 moved an application before the Tahsildar seeking to record their names in the Revenue Records on the strength of a partition deed. This application was initially rejected by the Tahsildar, and a subsequent appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer was likewise dismissed and filed an appeal before Additional Collector, Osmanabad, who rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents No. 6 and 7 preferred a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Additional Commissioner allowed the revision, recording a finding that a partition had occurred in 1986, and directed that the names of Respondents No. 6 and 7 be recorded accordingly. This order was confirmed by the learned Minister. 4. Upon a careful perusal of the record, I find that the Revenue Authorities erred in adjudicating a substantive question of title and partition. It is a settled principle of law that Revenue Officers cannot exercise the powers of a Civil Court to determine the validity or factum of a contested partition. If a party claims rights based on a partition deed that is not admitted or is disputed, the appropriate remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court to establish those 53 WP No.1235.2016 -3- rights. Revenue entries are primarily for fiscal purposes and must follow the decree of a Civil Court when substantive rights are at stake. 5. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, and subsequently the learned Minister, exceeded their jurisdiction by effectively acting as a Civil Court to validate the 1986 partition. Such an exercise of power under the revisional jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is legally unsustainable. While Respondents No. 6 and 7 maintain that the partition was rightly considered, the Revenue Authority cannot bypass the necessity of a civil adjudication where the partition itself is the point of contention. 6. In view of the above, the Court finds that the Additional Commissioner and the learned Minister exceeded their jurisdiction while entertaining the matter. Therefore, the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the learned Minister are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in file No. ROR/REV/PT/126/2012 53 WP No.1235.2016 -4- and order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Minister, are quashed and set aside. 8. The mutation entries as they existed prior to the Additional Commissioner’s order are directed to be restored in the Revenue Records. The parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court to seek a declaration of their rights regarding the alleged partition. 9. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Omkar Joshi