Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of Nasiruddin (the original Inamdar of Dargha Khaja Mohjeebuddin, Kaij), challenged the orders of respondent No.2 (Principal Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation) dated 11.06.1997, which upheld the mutation entry No.26 sanctioned by the Tahsildar in favor of respondent No.7. The dispute pertained to Survey No.16/E, measuring 7 Acres 38 Gunthas, in village Kaij. Respondent No.7 claimed that his uncle Ahmed Miya Chunnu Miya died, and his widow Niyamatbai gave him the land to cultivate. He applied to the Tahsildar on 15.12.1993 for recording his name in the cultivation column of the 7/12 extract. The village Talathi recorded his name on 07.09.1995, and the Tahsildar sanctioned mutation entry No.26 on 15.03.1993, holding respondent No.7 in possession for 1993-94. The petitioners contended that the land was Inam land and that they were the rightful owners. The court noted that the petitioners had not produced any evidence to show that they were in possession or that the mutation entry was erroneous. The authorities below had concurrently found that respondent No.7 was in possession and cultivating the land. The court held that mutation entries do not confer title and that the writ court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Mutation Entry - Possession and Cultivation - Sections 149, 152 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The petitioners challenged the mutation entry sanctioned in favor of respondent No.7 claiming possession and cultivation of the suit land. The court held that mutation entries do not confer title but only reflect possession. The concurrent findings of the authorities that respondent No.7 was in possession and cultivating the land were based on evidence and not perverse. The court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The petitioners' claim of title and possession was not supported by evidence, and the authorities' findings were concurrent. Hence, no interference was warranted. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities sanctioning mutation entry No.26 in favor of respondent No.7 were legal and proper, and whether the petitioners had any right to challenge the same.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mutation entry
- possession
- cultivation rights
- Inam land
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Section 149
- Section 152
- concurrent findings
- writ jurisdiction
- disputed questions of fact
