1 943.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4625 OF 2026 TARABAI VITTHAL PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Bhushan Mahajan AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 : Ms. Deepali Jape Advocate for Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Bachate Pralhad D. … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioner is seeking quashment of the letter dated 11.11.2025, issued by Respondent no. 2 / Tahsildar, Jalgaon, directing Respondent no. 4 – Village Revenue Officer, Tongaon, to remove the name of Nababai Shama Patil (47) from the other rights column of 7/12 extract of Gat no. 561/1 situated at Village Tongaon, Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. 2. The Petitioner who is daughter-in-law of one Nababai Shama Patil, has filed the present Writ Petition in capacity of the legal heir of the owner of Survey no. 138/2 situated at Tongaon. Her name is already mutated in other rights column vide mutation entry no. 47 in 7/12 extract of Survey no. 138/2 which is at Exhibit ‘A’ of the Writ Petition. 2 943.odt 3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that one Kadeerkhan Haji Jorawarkhan, who is Respondent no. 5 has filed an Application to the Tahsildar, for deletion of the trees from the 7/12 extract of land Gat no. 561/1 to the extent of 81 Ares purchased by him in 1987. According to him, when he purchased the said land there were no trees as shown in other rights column. The trees of Mangoes, Jamun and Banding Boja was shown in other rights column. Therefore, Respondent no. 5 requested to delete the absolete entries from other rights column. 4. Pursuant to his Application, the panchnama was conducted by the Circle Officer on 03.11.2025, wherein it is recorded that there are no trees standing as stated in the Application by Respondent no. 5. Accordingly, the Circle Officer has informed the Tahsildar, Tongaon, that he has conducted the panchnama and he did not find the trees of Mangoes and Jamun standing on the land in Gat no. 561/1 as mentioned in other rights column of the 7/12 extract. 5. On receiving such report from the Circle Officer, the Tahsildar has passed an order directing the Village Revenue Officer, Tongoan, by giving reference to the Application filed by Respondent no.5 on 30.09.2025, directing the Village Revenue Officer, to delete entries of Mangoes trees and Jamun trees as shown against the names of the respective persons along with the Bunding Boja from Gat no. 561. 3 943.odt 6. Since the entries have become absolete, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the said order, the name of Nababai as shown at page no. 18, in other rights column as Nababai Shama Patil (47), has been deleted. He submits that the application was restricted only to the deletion of the trees, not for deletion of names. The name of Nababai, the ancestor of the present petitioner was deleted without issuing any notice to her legal heirs. Thus, being aggrieved by the said deletion of the name of Nababai whose name is independently shown apart from the trees. The Petitioner has approached this Court only on the ground that the order directing deletion of the trees along with the names has been passed without issuing any notice or granting of any opportunity of hearing to the interested persons amongst whom the Petitioner is one of the legal heir. 7. Learned Advocate for Respondent no. 5 had opposed the prayer made by the Petitioner. 8. According to the learned AGP mutation entry no. 353 was taken way back on 27.07.1979. However, it remained to be reflected in the 7/12 extract. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the legal heir of the Nababai Shama Patil. So far as deletion of name of Nababai from other rights column is concerned, the deletion is done pursuant to the circular issued by the Commissioner. 4 943.odt 9. Learned Advocate for Respondent no.5 submits that the Petitioner has to establish her relationship with said Nababai and through whom the right are claimed by the Petitioner. 10. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relies on the 7/12 extract of adjoining land which belonged again to Nababai. The names of the occupants are shown in the 7/12 extract of the adjoining land in which one of the legal heir of Nababai name of the present Petitioner is also shown. It is thus established that the present Petitioner is claiming through the said Nababai. 11. It also needs to be appreciated that in identical facts of the adjoining land in Gat no. 562 when the Application filed by one Ashraf Khan, for deletion of similar entries about the encumbrance of the said land was made. Tahsildar has issued a notice calling objections from the interested persons. Thus, according to the Petitioner, in the present case also such notice ought to have been issued by the Tahsildar, calling upon the interested persons seeking objections from them. However, it no such procedure has been followed. 12. Thus, the fact remains that the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 11.11.2025, on the basis of Application of Respondent no. 5 is passed only by calling the report from the Circle Officer, and no opportunity has been given to the interested persons by calling upon the 5 943.odt interested persons to raise objections for deletion the encumbrance in other rights column and deletion of non existent trees. Therefore, the order dated 11.11.2025, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar. 13. The Tahsildar is directed to follow the procedure for deletion of the entries in other rights column by calling upon objections of the interested persons, granting opportunity to all the parties concerned and only thereafter, pass the appropriate orders. 14. In the wake of aforementioned directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC