1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 414 OF 1998 1. Laxman Bajaba Deshmukh (Kawde) Age : 65 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Dhanderphal, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Eknath Bajaba Deshmukh Age : 58 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Dhanderphal, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Shivaji Bajaba Deshmukh Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Dhanderphal, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The Sub Divisional Officer Sangamner Division, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Advocate General of Maharashtra, Advocate General’s Office, High Court Extension Building, Mumbai. .... RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 415 OF 1998 1. Shrikant S/o Nageshrao Shelke Age : Major,, Occ. Service, R/o : M-35, S-4/J/1/1, Swami Vivekanandnagar, New CIDCO, Nashik. 2. Bhausaheb S/o Bapusaheb Walve Age : Major, Occ. Agril. R/o : Dhanderphal (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Sau. Ashabai W/o Bhausaheb Walve Age : Major, Occ. Agril. R/o : Dhanderphal (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Annasaheb Jijaba Khatal Age : Major, Occ. Agril. R/o : Dhanderphal (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The Sub Divisional Officer Sangamner Division, 3 Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Advocate General of Maharashtra, Advocate General’s Office, High Court Extension Building, Mumbai. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 30/6/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER – B.R.GAVAI, J. ] 1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the validity of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ( For short, ‘ the Code ’ ), which permits a Revision against mutation entries to be entertained at any point. In identical set of facts, the Apex Court interprets the provisions of Section 257 of the Code held that in any case the exercise of revisional power by the Sub Divisional Officer ( For short, ‘ S.D.O. ’ ) after the period of 17 years is abuse of process of law. It has been further held that reasonable period for entertaining of revision would be of 3 years. 4 2. In the present case, the revisional jurisdiction is admittedly exercised after 17 years and 13 years respectively. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to go in the larger issue raised in the petition in as much as the petitions will have to be allowed in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ C ’. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 414,415.98