78.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 78 WRIT PETITION NO. 6011 OF 2016 Shantiniketan Co Operative Housing Society Through Its Chairman Ramrao Ganpatrao Maknikar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ….. Mr. M. S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. Momale U. L., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Respondents – State Mr. S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Mr. V. D. Sapkal (Senior Advocate) i/b Mr. K. V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 24.03.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner assails the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned Revenue Minister in Revision No. RTS No. 2015/PRAKRA.281/J-7A, whereby the Minister set aside the order dated 09.05.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad who had remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Laur for fresh adjudication. 3. The learned counsel, Mr. Deshmukh holding for Mr. Momale appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the year 1966, land admeasuring 2 Acres 20 R was purchased by the petitioner–society, 1 2026:BHC-AUG:13843 78.odt however, the mutation entry in respect of the registered sale deed was not recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, the land was laid out into plots and the same were allotted to its members. Certain open space remained. He further submits that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 subsequently purchased the said open space, which had already been purchased by the petitioner–society, and on the basis of the registered sale deed, applied for recording their names in the record of rights. Upon gaining knowledge thereof, the petitioner filed detailed objections before the Tahsildar, Latur. The Tahsildar, after considering the objections, rejected the same and directed recording of Mutation Entry No.7668. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who confirmed the order of the Tahsildar. A further appeal before the Additional Collector, Latur also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, who, by order dated 09.05.2015, remanded the matter to the SDO with directions to grant an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the Government officers who sanctioned the layout plan. The said remand order was challenged before the learned Minister of Revenue, who set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored the orders passed by the SDO and Additional Collector, further directing the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad / District Superintendent of Land Records, Latur to effectuate mutation in terms of the order passed by SDO. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is no dispute regarding the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the society; however, the same was not reported to the revenue 2 78.odt authorities, and therefore, the society’s name was not entered in the record of rights. Taking advantage of this, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the open space belonging to the society and sought mutation on that basis. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Minister ought not to have entertained the second revision filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In support, reliance is placed on Sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the Act”) and the decision in Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani Vs. Kakasaheb Laxman Gorde reported in (2008 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 848). It is submitted that once a remand order is passed, the Minister ought not to have entertained a further revision against such order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, while setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the learned Minister has not recorded any finding explaining why the Additional Commissioner’s order was being set aside, even though the said order only to the extent of remand was assailed. Since the remand order merely directed reconsideration, it would not have caused prejudice to either of the parties. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sapkal, instructed by learned counsel Mr. Patil for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, supports the order passed by the Minister. He invited attention to the cross- examination of the son of the original vendor who had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, to contend that the petitioner had title only to 3 acres of land. It is submitted that, at the time of execution of the sale deed, the said land had already been acquired by the Government and, therefore, the petitioner had no subsisting sale- able interest. He submits that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the 3 78.odt land from a person having valid title. It is further contended that even if the petitioner’s case is accepted that the open space was handed over to the Corporation, the same would not confer title upon the petitioner merely on the basis of mutation entries. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the registered sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has not been challenged before a competent civil court. He emphasizes that mutation entries are effected only for fiscal purposes and do not create or extinguish title. In this regard, reliance is placed on the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Additional Collector, and the Minister, to contend that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, it is evident that both parties claim rights over the property on the basis of registered sale deeds. The petitioner relies upon a sale deed of the year 1966, pursuant to which the land was purchased by the petitioner – society and subsequently developed into plots allotted to its members. However, it is an admitted position that since 1966, the name of the petitioner–society was not recorded in the revenue record. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 rely upon a registered sale deed of the year 2008. In view of the rival claims based on registered documents, the dispute essentially pertains to right, title, and interest in the property. In terms of Section 149 of the Act, mutation entries are required to be recorded on the basis of registered documents; however, such entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer or determine title. Since both parties assert competing title over the same property, such dispute cannot be adjudicated by the revenue 4 78.odt authorities. The question of title falls exclusively within the domain of the competent civil court. Accordingly, both parties are at liberty to approach the civil court for adjudication of their rights. The mutation entries presently existing shall remain subject to the outcome of such civil proceedings. Upon determination by the civil court, necessary entries shall be made in the revenue record. 8. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/March-2026 5