Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, 60 individuals, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging a mutation entry in the revenue records (7/12 extract) pertaining to certain agricultural lands. The petitioners claimed that the mutation entry was made without notice to them and that it affected their rights over the property. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the entry was merely a correction of a clerical error and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy before the civil court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ordinarily exercised to correct revenue entries, especially when the dispute involves a clerical error and the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a civil suit. The court observed that mutation entries do not confer or extinguish title and are only for fiscal purposes. The petitioners were directed to approach the civil court for adjudication of their rights. The judgment was delivered by a single judge bench, and the order was pronounced on 4th October 2025.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Scope of Interference in Revenue Entries - The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a mutation entry in the 7/12 extract, holding that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised for correction of revenue entries, especially when the dispute involves a clerical error and the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a civil suit. (Para 1) B) Property Law - Mutation Entry - Effect on Title - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Correction of Clerical Errors - The court observed that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer or extinguish title; they are only for fiscal purposes. Correction of a clerical mistake in the 7/12 extract does not require interference under Article 226. (Para 1) C) Civil Procedure - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The petitioners were directed to approach the civil court for adjudication of their rights, as the dispute involved questions of fact regarding title and possession, which cannot be effectively decided in writ proceedings. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a mutation entry in revenue records when the dispute pertains to a clerical error and the petitioners have an alternative remedy before the civil court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no interference under Article 226 is warranted. The petitioners were directed to approach the civil court for adjudication of their rights.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- 1950 is not ordinarily exercised to correct revenue entries
- mutation entries do not confer title
- correction of clerical errors in revenue records is permissible under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966.
