Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, four brothers (Balkrishna, Gopalkrishna, Vishwanath, and Dattatraya), challenged the judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Minister for Revenue, State of Maharashtra, in revision proceedings under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLR Code). The revision was filed by the legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna and Prabhakar (respondents) challenging mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010, which certified the names of the petitioners in respect of Gat No.54 admeasuring 08 Hectares 87 Ares of village Khairgavan, Tal. Yeola, Dist. Nashik. The mutation entry was certified after a family partition wherein the fifth brother Ramkrishna waived his share in Gat No.54 in lieu of getting sole right in Gat No.59. The respondents filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in 2013, which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed a revision before the Minister in 2016, which was allowed ex parte without notice to the petitioners. The High Court held that the Minister's order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was issued to the petitioners. Further, the revision was filed after an inordinate delay of about 3 years from the date of the SDO's order, and the Minister did not consider the aspect of limitation. The court also noted that the mutation entry was certified after following due process of law. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and restored the mutation entry.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Suo Motu Revision - Limitation - Section 257, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The Minister for Revenue cannot entertain a revision application filed after an inordinate delay of about 3 years without considering the aspect of limitation and without issuing notice to the affected parties. Held that the revisional authority must act within a reasonable time and cannot condone delay without application of mind. (Paras 2-25)
B) Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - Section 257, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The revisional order passed without issuing notice to the petitioners, who were the beneficiaries of the mutation entry, is violative of principles of natural justice. Held that any order passed in violation of natural justice is a nullity. (Paras 15-20)
C) Revenue Law - Mutation Entry - Certification - Section 149, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010 was certified after following due process of law and after considering the family partition. Held that the revisional authority erred in setting aside the mutation entry without considering the evidence on record. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister for Revenue, State of Maharashtra, while exercising suo motu revisional powers under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, could entertain a revision application filed after inordinate delay without considering the aspect of limitation and without issuing notice to the affected parties.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Minister for Revenue, State of Maharashtra, and restored mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Limitation
- Revenue revision
- Mutation entry
- Section 257 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Article 227 Constitution of India
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 37
WRIT PETITION NO.2658 OF 2018
Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar, Mr. Amogh Karandikar, Mr. Shubham Jawlekar, Mr. Vaibhav D. Kadam, Mr. S.D. Rayrikar
Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur and Ors.
Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Minister for Revenue, State of Maharashtra in revision proceedings under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.10.2017 and restore mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010.
Filing Reason
The Minister for Revenue allowed the revision application filed by the respondents (legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna and Prabhakar) without issuing notice to the petitioners and without considering the inordinate delay in filing the revision.
Previous Decisions
Mutation entry No.508 was certified on 17.10.2010. The respondents filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in 2013, which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed a revision before the Minister in 2016, which was allowed on 05.10.2017.
Issues
Whether the Minister for Revenue could entertain a revision application under Section 257 of the MLR Code after an inordinate delay of about 3 years without considering the aspect of limitation?
Whether the impugned order passed without issuing notice to the petitioners is violative of principles of natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the revision was filed after an inordinate delay of about 3 years from the date of the SDO's order and the Minister did not consider the aspect of limitation.
Petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to them, violating principles of natural justice.
Respondents argued that the mutation entry was wrongly certified and the Minister had suo motu powers to revise the order.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional authority under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 must act within a reasonable time and cannot entertain a revision application filed after an inordinate delay without considering the aspect of limitation. Further, any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice, i.e., without notice to the affected parties, is a nullity.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present petition filed under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Minister for Revenue, State of Maharashtra in revision proceedings under the provisions of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1996.
The revisional authority cannot entertain a revision application filed after an inordinate delay without considering the aspect of limitation and without issuing notice to the affected parties.
Procedural History
Mutation entry No.508 was certified on 17.10.2010. Respondents filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in 2013, which was dismissed. Respondents then filed a revision before the Minister for Revenue in 2016, which was allowed on 05.10.2017. Petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 26.02.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 257, Section 149
- Constitution of India: Article 227
