Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ramesh Shantilal Modi and Bharat Shantilal Modi, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 8th March 2018 passed by the Revenue Minister, State of Maharashtra. The Revenue Minister had dismissed the petitioners' revision application and confirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner, who had set aside an earlier order dated 29th December 2015 passed by the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector had declared mutation entry no.2560 in favour of the petitioners as legal and valid. The dispute pertained to land bearing survey no.423 admeasuring 3-H 41-R situated at village Somatane, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The original owner, late Fanindranath Dhamidhar Bhowmik, had executed a will bequeathing the property to his wife, Smt. Usha Fanindranath Bhowmik, who is the grandmother of respondent no.6. The petitioners claimed rights under the will. The Revenue Minister found that the will was unregistered and that no notice was given to the legal heirs before entering the mutation. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the Revenue Minister and the Additional Commissioner could not be interfered with under Article 227, as there was no perversity or error of law. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order setting aside the mutation entry.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Mutation Entry - Validity of Mutation Entry Based on Unregistered Will - The court considered whether a mutation entry based on an unregistered will and without notice to legal heirs could be sustained. Held that the Revenue Minister's order setting aside the mutation entry was justified as the will was unregistered and no notice was given to the legal heirs, and the concurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with under Article 227. (Paras 1-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The court examined the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against concurrent findings of fact. Held that the High Court would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perversity or error of law apparent on the face of the record. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revenue Minister was justified in setting aside the mutation entry no.2560 in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the will was unregistered and no notice was given to the legal heirs.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 8th March 2018 passed by the Revenue Minister is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mutation entry
- unregistered will
- notice to legal heirs
- revenue jurisdiction
- concurrent findings
- Article 227
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.5051 OF 2018
Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Mr.A.A. Vibhute for the Petitioners, Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent Nos.1 to 5, Mr.Amit Kumar Bhowmik with Mr.Aslam Khan for the Respondent No.6
Mr. Ramesh Shantilal Modi and Mr. Bharat Shantilal Modi
State of Maharashtra and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Revenue Minister dismissing the revision application and confirming the order of the Additional Commissioner setting aside the mutation entry.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 8th March 2018 passed by the Revenue Minister and to restore the order of the Deputy Collector declaring mutation entry no.2560 as legal and valid.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed rights over the suit property based on a will executed by the original owner, but the Revenue Minister set aside the mutation entry on the ground that the will was unregistered and no notice was given to the legal heirs.
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Collector had declared mutation entry no.2560 in favour of the petitioners as legal and valid on 29th December 2015. The Additional Commissioner set aside that order. The Revenue Minister dismissed the revision and confirmed the Additional Commissioner's order.
Issues
Whether the Revenue Minister was justified in setting aside the mutation entry no.2560 in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the will was unregistered and no notice was given to the legal heirs.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the concurrent findings of fact.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the will was valid and the mutation entry was correctly made.
The respondents contended that the will was unregistered and no notice was given to the legal heirs, and therefore the mutation entry was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perversity or error of law apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the Revenue Minister's finding that the will was unregistered and no notice was given to the legal heirs was a finding of fact, and there was no perversity or error of law.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 8th March, 2018 passed by the learned Revenue Minister, State of Maharashtra, dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioners and confirming the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, who had set aside the order dated 29th December, 2015 passed by the learned Deputy Collector declaring the mutation entry no.2560 in favour of the petitioners as legal and valid.
Procedural History
The Deputy Collector passed an order on 29th December 2015 declaring mutation entry no.2560 in favour of the petitioners as legal and valid. The Additional Commissioner set aside that order. The petitioners filed a revision before the Revenue Minister, who dismissed the revision on 8th March 2018. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
