Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Mutation Entry in Revenue Records Without Notice to Petitioner. Revenue Authority Directed to Decide Representation After Hearing All Parties Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 14
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Kausalyabai Kisand Dhande, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging a mutation entry made in the revenue records in favor of the respondents without her notice. The petitioner claimed that she was in possession of the land and that the mutation entry was made behind her back. The respondents, who were legal heirs of the original deceased persons, opposed the petition. The court noted that the mutation entry does not confer any title but the revenue authority must follow principles of natural justice. The court directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raver, to decide the petitioner's representation after hearing all parties concerned, including the petitioner and the respondents, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed in these terms, and the civil application was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Revenue Law - Mutation Entry - Principles of Natural Justice - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Mutation entry made without notice to the petitioner - Petitioner claimed to be in possession and objected to the entry - Court held that mutation entry does not confer title but revenue authority must follow principles of natural justice - Directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the petitioner's representation after hearing all concerned parties (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the mutation entry made in the revenue records without notice to the petitioner is sustainable and whether the revenue authority should decide the petitioner's representation after hearing all parties.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raver, is directed to decide the petitioner's representation after hearing all parties concerned, including the petitioner and the respondents, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Civil application disposed of accordingly.

Law Points

  • Mutation entry does not confer title
  • Revenue authority must follow principles of natural justice
  • Writ petition maintainable against revenue orders
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (06) 20

Writ Petition No. 3593 of 1991 with Civil Application No. 3064 of 1993

0000-00-00

Smt. Kausalyabai Kisand Dhande

Shri. Fakira Daula Tadvi (since deceased through legal heirs) and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging mutation entry in revenue records made without notice to the petitioner.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of mutation entry and direction to revenue authority to decide her representation after hearing all parties.

Filing Reason

Mutation entry was made in revenue records in favor of respondents without notice to the petitioner, who claimed possession of the land.

Issues

Whether the mutation entry made without notice to the petitioner is sustainable. Whether the revenue authority should decide the petitioner's representation after hearing all parties.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that mutation entry was made without her notice and she is in possession of the land. Respondents opposed the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

Mutation entry does not confer title, but revenue authority must follow principles of natural justice. The authority should decide the representation after hearing all parties.

Judgment Excerpts

Mutation entry does not confer any title. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raver, is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner after hearing all the parties concerned.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3593 of 1991 challenging mutation entry. Civil Application No. 3064 of 1993 was also filed. The court heard the matter and passed the final order.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds 100% Reservation for Local Scheduled Tribes in Teacher Posts in Scheduled Areas of Andhra Pradesh. Memos extending reservation to promotions and giving retrospective effect from 1986 held valid as explanatory and consequential.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Mutation Entry in Revenue Records Without Notice to Petitioner. Revenue Authority Directed to Decide Representation After Hearing All Parties Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.