Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Khatijabi w/o Ahmed Rajkotwala, through her power of attorney Usman, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The dispute concerned mutation entry in respect of survey No. 28/2 (New Gut No. 92) admeasuring 6 H 98R of village Nimbi, Tq. Balapur, Dist. Akola. An entry in the revenue record was made in favour of respondents 1 to 3 by the Talathi on 25.6.1998. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was dismissed on 17.10.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a further appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Collector, which was allowed on 22.9.2009. The respondents then filed a further appeal before the State Government under the same provisions, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner on 19.11.2010, setting aside the Additional Collector's order. The petitioner challenged this order in the writ petition. The Court considered the submissions of the parties and held that the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 247 of the Code. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right over the property and that the impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Mutation Entry - Section 247 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner - The dispute pertained to mutation entry in revenue records in respect of survey No. 28/2. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the order of the Additional Collector. The Court held that the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 247 of the Code and that the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and whether the impugned order suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner under Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Mutation entry disputes
- Scope of writ jurisdiction against revenue orders
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 91
Writ Petition No. 2066/2011
Mr. Anand Deshpande for the petitioner, Mr. A.S. Chandurkar with Mr. J.M. Gandhi for respondents 1 to 3, Mr. P.V. Bhoyar, AGP for respondents 4 to 7
Khatijabi w/o Ahmed Rajkotwala
Abdul Rauf s/o Abdul Sattar and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner in a mutation entry dispute.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner allowing the appeal of the respondents and setting aside the order of the Additional Collector which had been in favour of the petitioner.
Previous Decisions
The Talathi made a mutation entry in favour of respondents 1 to 3 on 25.6.1998. The petitioner's appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer was dismissed on 17.10.2008. The petitioner's further appeal to the Additional Collector was allowed on 22.9.2009. The respondents' further appeal to the Additional Commissioner was allowed on 19.11.2010.
Issues
Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966?
Whether the impugned order suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 247 of the Code.
The respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioner failed to establish any legal right over the property and the impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition takes exception to the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati by which order, the appeal filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein came to be allowed and the order passed by the Addl. Collector dated 22.9.2009 came to be set aside.
The dispute in the above petition is as regards the mutation entry in respect of survey No. 28/2 ( New Gut No. 92) admeasuring 6 H 98R of village Nimbi, Tq. Balapur, Dist. Akola.
Procedural History
The Talathi made a mutation entry in favour of respondents 1 to 3 on 25.6.1998. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was dismissed on 17.10.2008. The petitioner then filed a further appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the Additional Collector, which was allowed on 22.9.2009. The respondents filed a further appeal before the State Government under the same provisions, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner on 19.11.2010, setting aside the Additional Collector's order. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 247
- Constitution of India: 227
