Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of Madhukar Natthuji Dharmare, challenged the order dated 7/3/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, in Revision Petition No.15/RTS64/20082009. The revision was filed by respondent no.1, Parmod Junghare, against the order of the Additional Collector dated 16/1/2009. The dispute concerned mutation entry of land Survey No.23/1, area 4.30 hectares, which originally stood in the name of Natthuji Dharmare. After his death on 8/6/1949, the land was mutated in the names of his son Madhukar and wife Girija. In 1998, on application by Anusayabai Junghare (daughter of Natthuji and mother of respondent no.1), the Tahsildar mutated the land in her name. After Anusayabai's death in 2007, respondent no.1 applied for mutation based on a Will executed by her in his favour, and the Tahsildar effected the mutation. The petitioners (heirs of Madhukar) filed an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Collector, who allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation entry. Respondent no.1 then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who allowed the revision and restored the mutation entry. The petitioners challenged this revision order. The High Court held that the Additional Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 247, which is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or illegality, and cannot reappreciate evidence or decide title. The court noted that the Will had not been challenged before a civil court, and the Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate its validity. The High Court quashed the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored the order of the Additional Collector, thereby setting aside the mutation entry in favour of respondent no.1.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue Law - Mutation Entry - Validity of Will - Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The dispute pertained to mutation of land based on a Will executed by the deceased daughter. The Additional Commissioner in revision set aside the mutation entry, holding that the Will was not proved. The High Court held that the Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate the validity of a Will, which is a civil court matter, and that the revision under Section 247 is limited to jurisdictional errors. The order of the Additional Commissioner was quashed, and the mutation entry was restored. (Paras 1-8) B) Land Revenue Law - Revision - Scope of Section 247 - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The High Court held that the revisional authority under Section 247 cannot reappreciate evidence or decide title; it can only correct errors of jurisdiction or illegality. The Additional Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the mutation entry on merits. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner in revision under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 could set aside the mutation entry made by the Tahsildar based on a Will, without the Will being challenged before a civil court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 7/3/2011, and restored the order of the Additional Collector dated 16/1/2009. The mutation entry in favour of respondent no.1 was set aside.
Law Points
- Mutation entry based on Will is valid until set aside by competent civil court
- Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title
- Revision under Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966 is limited to jurisdictional errors
