Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, 40 individuals, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner, District Nagpur, in Revenue Case No. 01/2022. The Sub-Divisional Officer had corrected the mutation entries in the revenue records pertaining to certain agricultural lands. The petitioners contended that they were not given any notice before the correction was made, and therefore, the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. They sought quashing of the order and restoration of the earlier mutation entries. The court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, particularly Section 9, which deals with the procedure for correction of entries in the record of rights. The court noted that the petitioners were not parties to the original proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The correction was made in a summary proceeding, and the petitioners could not claim any vested right based on the earlier entries. The court held that since the petitioners were not parties, no notice was required to be given to them. The court also observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of filing a suit for declaration of their rights, if any. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court did not award any costs.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Mutation Entry Correction - Notice under Section 9 - The petitioners challenged the correction of mutation entries made by the Sub-Divisional Officer without issuing notice to them. The court held that since the petitioners were not parties to the original proceeding, no notice was required to be given to them under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The court further observed that the petitioners could not claim any right based on the earlier mutation entries which were corrected in a summary proceeding. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who were not parties to the original mutation proceeding, are entitled to notice before correction of revenue entries under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mutation entry correction
- Notice under Section 9 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Right to be heard
- Revenue records
- Summary proceedings
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 120
WRIT PETITION NO.1686 OF 2022
Ankushbhau S/o Juglal Baghele and 39 others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of Sub-Divisional Officer correcting mutation entries in revenue records.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner, District Nagpur, in Revenue Case No. 01/2022, and restoration of earlier mutation entries.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed that the Sub-Divisional Officer corrected mutation entries without issuing notice to them, violating principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order dated 22.02.2022 correcting mutation entries in Revenue Case No. 01/2022.
Issues
Whether the petitioners, who were not parties to the original mutation proceeding, are entitled to notice before correction of revenue entries under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing, thus violating natural justice.
The court observed that the petitioners were not parties to the original proceeding and therefore no notice was required under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, notice is required only to persons who are parties to the proceeding. Since the petitioners were not parties to the original mutation correction proceeding, they were not entitled to notice. The correction of revenue entries in a summary proceeding does not confer any vested right on the petitioners, and they may seek remedy by filing a civil suit.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners were not parties to the proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Therefore, no notice was required to be given to them under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
The petitioners cannot claim any right based on the earlier mutation entries which were corrected in a summary proceeding.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner, District Nagpur, in Revenue Case No. 01/2022. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 04.05.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 9
