Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over land bearing old Survey No.279 (new Survey No.78) in Palghar, Maharashtra. A partition was recorded in 1955 between Hari Balwant Naik, Mahadev Aba Naik, and Ganesh Bhai Naik, and Mutation Entry No.2414 was certified. In 1968, the Deputy Director of Land Records carried out a sub-division of Survey No.279 into 12 shares, recorded in Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 (Hissa Form No.4). The Patrak showed Hari Balwant Naik as owner of three shares (279/1/5, 279/1/6, 279/1/12), though he had no share in the original partition. Mutation Entry No.3342 was certified in 1972 to reflect this, but was cancelled by the Tehsildar on 16 October 1972. Subsequently, the land was renumbered as Survey No.78 and divided into only two shares (78/1A and 78/1B), ignoring the 1968 sub-division. The petitioners (legal heirs of Hari Balwant Naik) sought mutation based on the Aakarphod Patrak in 2016. In response, respondent Nos.5 to 9 filed proceedings before the District Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR) in 2017 for correction of the Aakarphod Patrak, leading to an order cancelling it in respect of Survey No.279. The petitioners appealed to the Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR), who set aside the DSLR's order. Respondent Nos.5 to 9 then filed a revision before the Minister (Revenue), who partly allowed it, holding that the Aakarphod Patrak had become infructuous and meaningless due to non-implementation, and directed sub-division measurements of Survey No.78/1A and 78/1B. The petitioners challenged this order. The court analyzed the nature of Aakarphod Patrak as a document of title, relying on Ramchandra Yeshwant Desai v. Krishna Sitaram Desai, and held that cancellation of a mutation entry does not invalidate the Patrak. The court found the Minister's finding that the Patrak was infructuous to be perverse, as no order setting it aside existed. The court allowed the petition, set aside the Minister's order, and restored the DDLR's order, directing that the Aakarphod Patrak be given effect.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Aakarphod Patrak - Document of Title - Aakarphod Patrak/Hissa Form No.4 is a document of title and has precedence over mutation entries - The court held that cancellation of Mutation Entry No.3342 does not ipso facto cancel the Aakarphod Patrak, which remains valid until set aside by a competent authority (Paras 8-9, 12-14).
B) Land Revenue - Mutation Entry - Effect - Mutation entry does not confer title but only records changes in possession - The court held that mere cancellation of a mutation entry cannot render the underlying Aakarphod Patrak infructuous or meaningless (Paras 8-9, 12-14).
C) Land Revenue - Sub-Division Measurement - Validity - Sub-division created by Aakarphod Patrak must be given effect through measurement - The court held that the Minister's direction for sub-division measurement of Survey No.78/1A and 78/1B was proper, but the finding that Aakarphod Patrak was infructuous was erroneous (Paras 7, 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 (Hissa Form No.4) constitutes a document of title and whether its validity is affected by cancellation of Mutation Entry No.3342
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 21 March 2023 passed by the Minister (Revenue), and restored the order dated 17 June 2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records. The court held that the Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 remains valid and must be given effect.
Law Points
- Aakarphod Patrak/Hissa Form No.4 is a document of title
- Mutation entry does not confer title
- Cancellation of mutation entry does not invalidate Aakarphod Patrak
- Sub-division measurements must be based on Aakarphod Patrak
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (2) 251
Writ Petition No.8460 of 2023
Ms. Neeta Karnik (Senior Advocate) i/b Ms. Sharwari Lopes for Petitioners, Ms. Anjali Helekar with Ms. Anu C. Kaladharan for Respondent Nos.10 to 15, Mr. Kaivalya Manoj Raul with Mr. R.P. Patil i/b Ms. Ruchita Rajpurohit for Respondent Nos.5 & 7 to 9, Mr. Bapusaheb Dahiphale (AGP) for Respondent-State, Mr. Sunil Karandikar (Amicus Curiae)
Kamlakar Haribhau Naik, Naresh Haribhau Naik, Vasant Haribhau Naik
The State of Maharashtra, Minister Revenue State of Maharashtra, Deputy Director of Land Records Kokan Division Mumbai, District Superintendent Land Records Palghar, Bhupesh Sadanand Raut, Jagdish Vishnu Naik, Kamlesh Dinkar Thakur, Vishal Nandan Patil, Sagar Bhuvanesh Patil, Yogesh Balkrishna Naik, Mangesh Balkrishna Naik, Moreshwar Bhau Naik, Manohar Yashwant Naik, Milind Yashwant Naik, Santosh Yashwant Naik (deceased through heirs Nutan Santosh Naik and Samiksha Santosh Naik)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging order of Minister (Revenue) declaring Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 infructuous and directing sub-division measurements.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought setting aside of orders dated 29 November 2017 (DSLR) and 21 March 2023 (Minister) and restoration of DDLR order dated 17 June 2022.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed title to land based on Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968, which was allegedly rendered infructuous by the Minister's order despite no order setting it aside.
Previous Decisions
DSLR order dated 29 November 2017 cancelled Aakarphod Patrak; DDLR order dated 17 June 2022 set aside DSLR order; Minister order dated 21 March 2023 partly allowed revision, holding Patrak infructuous.
Issues
Whether Aakarphod Patrak/Hissa Form No.4 is a document of title and has precedence over mutation entries.
Whether cancellation of Mutation Entry No.3342 ipso facto cancels the Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968.
Whether the Minister's finding that Aakarphod Patrak had become infructuous is perverse.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Aakarphod Patrak is a document of title signed by all sharers and cancellation of mutation entry does not affect its validity.
Respondents argued that non-implementation of the Patrak and cancellation of mutation entry rendered it infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi
Aakarphod Patrak/Hissa Form No.4 is a document of title and its validity is not affected by cancellation of a mutation entry. The Minister's finding that the Patrak had become infructuous was perverse as no order setting it aside existed.
Judgment Excerpts
Aakarphod Patrak/Hissa form No.4 confers title on parties against whose name various lands are indicated.
Mere cancellation of Mutation Entry No.3342 becomes meaningless so long as sub-division created by Aakarphod Patrak / Hissa Form No.4 stands good.
Learned Minister recorded a perverse finding that Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 has been rendered infructuous in absence of any order setting it aside.
Procedural History
Partition recorded in 1955 via Mutation Entry No.2414. Sub-division of Survey No.279 into 12 shares via Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968. Mutation Entry No.3342 certified in 1972 but cancelled on 16 October 1972. Land renumbered as Survey No.78 and divided into 78/1A and 78/1B. Petitioners sought mutation in 2016. Respondent Nos.5-9 filed proceedings before DSLR in 2017, leading to order dated 29 November 2017 cancelling Patrak. Petitioners appealed to DDLR, which set aside DSLR order on 17 June 2022. Respondent Nos.5-9 filed revision before Minister, who partly allowed it on 21 March 2023. Petitioners filed present Writ Petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:
