Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3013 OF 2012 PETITIONER : Ishwardayal S/o. Shrawan Lokhande, Aged about 54 years, Occu. Cultivation, R/o. Alesur, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. ... VERSUS… RESPONDENTS 1. Shrikrushna s/o Shriram Lokhande, aged about 49 years, Occu. Cultivation, R/o Alesur, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. 2. Vasant s/o Sitaram Lokhande, aged about 65 years, Occu. Cultivation, 3. Keshavrao s/o Sitaram Lokhande, aged about 55 years, Occu. Cultivation, Both No. 2 & 3 R/o Piparia, Tahsil Kurai, District Seoni. 4. Motiram s/o Sitaram Lokhande, aged about 59 years, Occu. Cultivation, 5. Rovinda s/o Sitaram Lokhande, aged about 50 years, Occu. Cultivation, Both No. 4 & 5 R/o Alesur, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. 6. Deoka w/o Tarachand Karamkar, aged about 57 years, Occu. Cultivation, R/o Yedarbuchi, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. 7. Punabai wd/o Suka Lokhande, aged about 70 years, Occu. Cultivation, 8. Tulshiram s/o Suka Lokhande, aged about 50 years, Occu. Cultivation, 9. Tarachand s/o Atmaram Lokhande, aged about 55 years, Occu. Cultivation, 10. Rakhichand s/o Atmaram Lokhande, aged about 50 years, Occu. Cultivation, Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:12500 Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 2 11. Gopichand s/o Atmaram Lokhande, aged about 45 years, Occu. Cultivation, Petition is dismissed against R. No.12 in default vide Registrar (Judi.) order dated 13-6-2018 12. Balkrushna s/o Shioram Lokhande, aged about 55 years, Occu. Cultivation, 13. Sunita w/o Ramesh Karamkar, aged about 55 years, Occu. Cultivation, 14. Deoki wd/o Shivram Lokhande, R.nos.7 to 14, R/O Alesur, Tahsil Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara, aged about 74 years, Occu. Cultivation, Respondent No. 7 & 14 R/o Alesur, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. 15. The Talathi, Mouza Lendezari, (Gonditola), Saza No. 2, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. 16. The Revenue Officer, Nakadongri, Tahsil Office, Tumsar, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. 17. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara. 18. The Additional collector, Bhandara. 19. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.D. Muley a/w. Mr. M.V. Muley, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. K.S. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 10 and 13. Ms. D.V. Sapkal, AGP for Respondent/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . DATE : 16/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. 2. In the present petition, the challenge is to Order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division Nagpur, Nagpur, in Revision Application No.4/RTS-64/2008- Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 3 2009 whereby, the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, was set-aside and the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, was confirmed. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is that :- 4. On 27.06.2006, the petitioner has purchased 0.50 H.R. land out of 3.05 H.R. of Mauza – Gonditola, Tahsil Tumsad, Dist. Bhandara, from respondent No.12. After purchasing the said land by a registered Sale Deed dated 27.06.2006, the name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue record by the leaned Revenue Officer on 04.08.2006. After the mutation entry was recorded in the name of the petitioner, respondent No.1 raised an objection to the mutation entry by filing an appeal before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara. According to respondent No.1, the mutation entry recorded in the revenue record was contrary to the factual position. It is stated that the property was a joint family property and that the land which was purchased by the petitioner was Class-II land. Therefore, according to respondent No.1, the said transaction being illegal, consequently, the mutation entry recorded in favour of the petitioner, be cancelled. As such, the dispute in the present petition is arising in respect of the recording of a mutation entry. Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 4 5. It is further submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 23.10.2007 allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent No.1, by holding that the land belonged to Class-II category, as well as the same being a joint family property, hence, transaction being illegal, consequently, the entry recorded in revenue record is illegal. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, accordingly, directed to cancel the revenue entries recorded in favour of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner against the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, has preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Additional Collector and pointed out that Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short “the T.P. Act”) permits for transfer of joint family land. He further relied upon a circular issued by the State of Maharashtra, thereby, allowing the transfer of the Class-II land. Relying upon the same, the learned Additional Collector, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by his order dated 29.07.2008. 7. Thereafter, respondent No.1 challenged the said order of learned Additional Collector, before the learned Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. The learned Additional Commissioner has reversed the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, holding that Section 44 of T.P. Act, has been wrongly interpreted by the learned Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 5 Additional Collector and that the circular which is relied by the petitioner for transfer of Class-II land, was a conditional one and unless that con- ditions are satisfied, the learned Sub-Registrar could not have permitted to execute the Sale Deed. According to the learned Commissioner, the Assistant Registrar, while executing the Sale Deed failed to apply his mind and therefore, upheld the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, in the matter. 8. In this background, the petitioner approached before this Court by way of filing the present petition. 9. The petitioner has raised prime submission that under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the MLR Code”), the powers available to the Revenue Authorities are only to record a transaction which was reported to them and on the basis of that document, correct the entry in the revenue record. The said provision nowhere provides any Revenue Authorities to decide the validity of any transaction or to enter into the issue as to whether the transaction is legal or illegal. Hence, according to the petitioner, the Revenue Authorities, by entering into the merits of the document, have exceeded their jurisdiction and therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court. Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 6 10. In support of these submissions, the petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Others Vs Krishna Balu Naukudkar reported in 2003 (2) MHLJ 276, whereby this Court has held that an enquiry under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, by the Revenue Authorities does not empower the Authority to adjudicate upon the title and rights of parties to immovable property. The relevant observation of this Court in the said judgment i.e. paragraph 11 and 14 are reproduced as follows :- “11. Undoubtedly in case of difficulty in ascertaining the right of the parties based on the document produced or on account of failure to produce documents, the revenue officers acting under section 150 of the said Code can certainly decide about the issue of possession of the property and modify the entries accordingly in the register of mutations. However, in cases where the person discloses the title better than the other, from the documents pro- duced by him, certainly such person will have edge over the other in relation to the decisión pertaining to the possession of property. Every such decision would be also final subject to the adjudication about the same by the civil court. Nevertheless, while considering the issue of actual possession, the revenue authorities under section 150 of the said Code cannot decide about title to the property or other right to the property of the parties to such dispute. In fact, Rule 17 of the said Rules deals with and clearly speak of certification of entries in the register Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 7 of mutation and deciding disputes relating to the mutation in the entries, and not of decision relating to the rights of the parties in or to the properties. It further speaks of fixing the matter for hearing consequent to the objections raised to the entries, in order to decide the dispute for the purpose of certifying the entries and not to decide the rights of parties to the properties. Only other issue which can be dealt with by the revenue authorities under the said provisions of law is the issue of actual possession of the properties. In that respect also, the Revenue Officer acting under sections 149 and 150 of the said Code while deciding the issue of possession has to give due credence to the documentary evidence and the person having documentary proof of title to the property either in the form of valid and lawful registered deed or a decree of the court, then such person shall be held to be in actual possession. This conclusion is inevitable in view of the provisions of law contained in part D of the said rules and particularly Rule 17 thereof which provides that "The certifying officer shall then hold a summary enquiry and decide each dispute entered in the register of disputed cases on the basis of possession" and further "if a person actually holds properties under a claim of title, he shall be recorded as occupant" and then that "if there is a doubt as to the actual possession, the persons with the strongest title shall be so recorded. 14. It is also to be noted that while exercising the powers under the said Code and the rules made thereunder the Authorities under the Code, cannot assume jurisdiction under different statutes to investigate into the rights of the parties in relation to properties which are referred to in the applications for mutation Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 8 of the entries. I am fortified in this view by the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Evergreen Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in AIR 1992 Gujarat 118, wherein while dealing with the scope of powers of the Revenue Authorities in the matter of the application for mutation of entries under Bombay Land Revenue Code has observed that: "So far as the proceedings under Rule 108 of the Rules, popularly known as RTS proceedings, are concerned, it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. Such mutations have to follow either the documents of title or the orders passed by competent authorities under special enactments. Independently the Revenue Authorities, as mentioned in Rule 108 of the Rules, cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transaction recorded in the entry are against the provisions of a particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by followings the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely to be affected by any order that may be passed."" 11. From the abovesaid judgment of this Court as well as con- sidering the provisions of the MLR Code, it is clear that the scope of the proceedings under Section 149 of the MLR Code, it is clear that this Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 9 provision deals with the revenue record being updated in relation to the immovable properties for the purpose of assessment of revenue and collection thereof. The Revenue Authorities not empowered to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties, or their title to the immovable properties. 12. In the present matter, it is also pointed out that the petitioner has filed a Regular Civil Suit No.15 of 2014 seeking declaration as an owner to the extent of 0.50 H.R. of land purchased by him by a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.06.2006. The said Regular Civil Suit No.15 of 2014 is pending on the file of Civil Judge Junior Division, Tumsar. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the present petition. According to him, the land involved being a joint family property, such alienation of property at the instance of one of the family member is not permissible under the settled principles of law and there- fore, the Revenue Authorities have rightly appreciated the controversy involved in the matter. It is stated that while recording the entries, Revenue Officers has inherent powers to consider the sanctity and validity of documents. Hence, he can determine the incidental question in the matter. Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 10 14. In the light of the submissions of the parties and the issue involved in the present case, it is only the extent whether the Revenue Authorities can exercise the powers under Section 149 of the MLR Code. In my considered opinion, the Section 149 of the MLR Code, nowhere empowers Revenue Authorities to look into the correctness, validity and sanctity of a registered document executed between the parties. It is well settled position of law that entries made in the Revenue Record are only for fiscal purposes, which neither create nor extinguish the right of person in immovable property. In such circumstances, proceedings under the provisions of the MLR Code, cannot be equated with the proceedings arisen out of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. 15. In my considering opinion, the Revenue Authorities in the present matter, by exceeding their jurisdiction, passed the impugned order. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, is not in accordance with the provision of law. 16. It is further pertinent to note that the Regular Civil Suit No.15/2014 is already pending before the learned Civil Court. The respondents are at liberty to raise all these ground before the learned Civil Court and the learned Civil Court can take appropriate decision in Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 11 the matter so as to decide the validity and sanctity of the registered Sale Deed dated 27.06.2006. 17. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner does not stand to the scrutiny of law and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following order :- O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition No.3013 of 2012 is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in Revision Application No.4/RTS-64/2008-2009, District – Bhandara, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Entries in the name of petitioner are directed to be restored on its original position in the Revenue Records. (iv) Respondent are at liberty to appraoch before the Revenue Authorities to file the application under Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to record the fact that dispute is pending between the parties and therefore, mutation entry be recorded in a register maintained for disputed cases. (v) It is further made clear that subject to decision of Civil Proceedings, the parties are at liberty to move to the Revenue Authorities for correction of the revenue entries. Pvf Judgment WP-3013-2012 J..odt 12 18. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . ) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf