Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which confirmed a mutation entry in the revenue records. The dispute pertained to a clerical error in the 7/12 extract, where the name of the original owner was incorrectly recorded. The Sub-Divisional Officer corrected the entry to reflect the correct name. The petitioners argued that the correction was improper and that they had a right to the property. The High Court examined the matter and found that the correction was merely a clerical error and did not involve any substantial question of law. The court noted that the petitioners had not demonstrated any legal right that was adversely affected by the correction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no interference was warranted under writ jurisdiction. The decision was based on the principle that revenue records are not conclusive of title and that corrections of clerical errors do not require extensive judicial review.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Mutation Entry - Correction of Clerical Error - The petitioners challenged the mutation entry in the revenue records, which was corrected by the Sub-Divisional Officer to reflect the correct name of the original owner. The High Court held that the correction was merely a clerical error and no substantial question of law arose, dismissing the writ petition. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners have made out any case for interference under writ jurisdiction against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer confirming the mutation entry in the revenue records.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no substantial question of law arose and that the correction of a clerical error in the revenue record did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Mutation entry
- Revenue record
- Clerical error
- Correction
- Writ jurisdiction
- No substantial question of law
