1 932-wp-983-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 983 OF 2024 Jagdish Uddhavrao Kulkarni VERSUS State Of Maharashtra Through Revenue And Forest Department And Others ... Mr. S. D. Kulkarni a/w Ms. Pranali Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondents-State ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by clause no.2 of the operative part of the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in an Appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Considering the short controversy and to clarify from the record, this Court requested Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, learned AGP to call for original record from the concerned office. In compliance with the request made by this Court, Mr. Sonpawale, has placed the original file before the Court. 3. The objection raised by the petitioner in the petition is very short. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father namely Uddhavrao Kulkarni was owner of agricultural lands 2026:BHC-AUG:45812 2 932-wp-983-2024 bearing gut nos.252 and 240/1 located at village Matulthan, Tahsil Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. These lands were leased to Changdev Sugar Mills on 08.01.1948. Subsequent to the lease in the year 1958, petitioner’s father partitioned the said lands in favour of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was minor at the relevant time, a mutation entry was recorded showing name of petitioner’s mother as his guardian. 4. Suffice to note, the mutation entry bears no.1959. In the meantime, the lands were affected by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (“the Act of 1961” for brevity) and were declared as surplus. Subsequently in the year 2012, the Ceiling Act underwent a substantial amendment, whereby it was provided that the surplus land could revert to the original owner by completing the formalities. Consequent to the amendment, the subject matter / lands came to be allotted to the petitioner. Suffice to note, in the meantime the petitioner’s father had submitted an application to Changdev Sugar Mill requesting it to pay the rent to his son i.e. present petitioner since the lands were partitioned with him and had fallen to his share. 3 932-wp-983-2024 5. It is also not in dispute that the lessee i.e. Changdev Sugar Mill had been paying rent to the petitioner. Consequent to the proceedings in the light of the amended provision of the Ceiling Act, the petitioner applied to the Authorities for recording his name in the Form No.3 (Namuna No.3). However, the authorities mistakenly entered the name of petitioner’s deceased father in the Namuna No.3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Officer, Shirdi for correction in the record. However vide order dated 27.09.2022, the said grievance came to be rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer for want of jurisdiction. 6. Subsequently, the petitioner filed proceeding before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik for correction under Section 247 of the Act of 1966 in an appeal. After going through the entire file, the Divisional Commissioner partly allowed the appeal thereby directing to record the names of all successors of deceased Uddhavrao in Namuna No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner to enter the names of all successors, the petitioner has filed present petition. 4 932-wp-983-2024 7. Mr. S. D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioner would place reliance on Section 28-1(AA)(3) of the Act of 1961. He would submit that the Appellate Authority has rightly observed that the subject matter/properties were standing in the name of the petitioner since 1958. He submits that the lands were partitioned to him by his own father while the petitioner was minor. Since 1958, the mutation entry is neither challenged by anybody nor the same has lost its status. He would submit that since the petitioner’s name stands as sole owner and possessor of the said properties, it was not open to the Appellate Authority to direct recording of names of all the successors. He strenuously submits that the petitioner is the only applicant who filed application within specified time for allotment of the subject matter lands to him. With this, Mr. Kulkarni prays to allow the Writ Petition. 8. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, learned AGP would submit that there is no error in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. He would submit that the Divisional Commissioner has rightly directed that since the name of deceased Uddhavrao was wrongly recorded, the same ought to be replaced by the names of all the legal heirs of deceased 5 932-wp-983-2024 Uddhavrao. With this, Mr. Sonpawale prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. Heard both the sides extensively. It is not in dispute that the lands were originally owned by one Uddhavrao Kulkarni i.e. petitioner’s father. In the year 1958 itself, deceased Uddhavrao partitioned his properties and allotted the subject matter lands to present petitioner. The petitioner was minor at the relevant time and was represented by his mother. Based on the request of the deceased Uddhavrao, the Revenue Authorities recorded the mutation entry no.1959. The said mutation entry is intact since then. Nothing is before me to suggest that any civil dispute is filed by any of the family members or legal heir of deceased Uddhavrao. On the basis of the said partition and the mutation entry, deceased Uddhavrao in his lifetime requested the Changdev Sugar Mill to pay the rent to petitioner. As such, petitioner was receiving the rent in the capacity of its owner. 10. Appellate Authorities has observed that indeed name of deceased Uddhavrao ought not to have appeared in the Namuna No.3 since he is already died. However, since prior to Namuna No.3 the said Uddhavrao was no more, the Appellate 6 932-wp-983-2024 Authority opined that all the names of legal heirs should be on record. 11. Considering the record placed before me by Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioner, I find that it is an undisputed fact and record that petitioner’s name was recorded as owner and possessor of the subject matter lands since 1958. The record is not disturbed till this date. Besides that even an endorsement or record in the Namuna No.3 by itself does not independently create a title or ownership of any land. Entry merely represents the record. In the instant case, what is on record is the long standing mutation entry. In view of this, I find that the Writ Petition could be allowed striking clause no.2 of the operative part of the judgment and order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Suffice to note, mere entry of petitioner’s name in the Namuna No.3 shall not affect the rights of any other legal heir of deceased Uddhavrao to claim any interest in the subject matter lands subject to the provisions of law. 12. In view of this, I pass following order: ORDER a. Writ Petition stands allowed. 7 932-wp-983-2024 b. Clause no.2 of the operative order from part of judgment and order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in RTS Appeal No.708 of 2022 is modified to the extent of recording the name of petitioner in place of deceased Uddhavrao Bhagwant Kulkarni in Namuna No.3. c. These directions are subject to the observations recorded supra. d. Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026