Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kondiba Rau Shinde, challenged an order of the Principal Secretary (Revenue Appeals and Revisions), Government of Maharashtra, dated 18th September 1990, which confirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, dated 27th September 1988. The orders rejected the petitioner's application for having his name entered in the crop cultivation column in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 3 hectares and 67 ares bearing Gut No. 258. The Principal Secretary held that the petitioner was not entitled to have his name entered in the revenue record as being in lawful possession. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Principal Secretary could not have arrived at this finding since the petitioner was found to be in actual possession. However, the court did not consider this contention because the impugned order was made in a second revision, which is not permissible under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The first revision order before the Additional Commissioner was also against the petitioner and had not been challenged. The court held that the revisional authority had not interfered with the question of fact but on the question of law, and the second revision was not maintainable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Second Revision - Maintainability - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - The impugned order was made in a second revision, which is not permissible under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The court held that the second revision was not maintainable and dismissed the petition on that ground alone. (Paras 3-4) B) Land Revenue - Revenue Entry - Lawful Possession - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - The revisional authority held that the petitioner was not entitled to have his name entered in the revenue record as being in lawful possession. The court noted that the first revision order was against the petitioner and had not been challenged. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second revision is maintainable under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and whether the petitioner is entitled to have his name entered in the revenue record as being in lawful possession.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order of the Principal Secretary is upheld as the second revision was not maintainable under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Law Points
- Second revision not permissible under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Revisional authority cannot interfere with findings of fact
- Lawful possession required for revenue entry
