1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7206 OF 2005. Chhagubai Rameshchand Jaibhai ... Petitioner. Versus Shevantabai Bhagwan Gite and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 though served - absent. Respondent No.2 abated as per Court's order dated 14.2.2008. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 22.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. One Bhagwan was holder of certain 2 agricultural lands situated at village Therwadi, Tq. Karjat, bearing Gat Nos.20,25,26,35,40 and 591. After his demise, the petitioner sought mutation of her name in his place as the legal heir. She asserted that she was the only daughter of deceased Bhagwan and that alongwith her deceased Respondent No.l Kisnabai being the widow of said Bhagwan they were entitled to get their names mutated in respect of the said agricultural lands. The concerned authority directed mutation of their names vide mutation entry No.265 which was sanctioned on 24.3.1995. The mutation entry was challenged by the Respondent No.1 who claimed to be the wife of deceased Bhagwan and his legal heir. The Revision Application No.19/2001 was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat and it was directed that name of the Respondent No.1 Shevantabai shall be recorded as the legal heir of deceased Bhagwan. As a necessary fall out of such finding, the mutation entry No.265 was cancelled. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of an appeal which also failed and thereafter Revision Application was filed before 3 the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, vide RTS No.66/2003. The authorities concurrently held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim status as legal heir of deceased Bhagwan and that the claim of the Respondent No.1 Shevantabai was legal and proper. 3. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned advocate would point that the Respondent No.1 Shevantabai was divorced and had no concern with deceased Bhagwan. He points out from copy of judgment in Application No.29/1975 filed U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the Respondent No.1 - Shevantabai that she was granted maintenance allowance as divorced wife of deceased Bhagwan. The Criminal Court observed that the Respondent No.1 - Shevantabai as well as deceased Bhagwan admitted, unequivocally, that divorce had taken place between them in the year 1954. It appears that this fact is overlooked by the three (3) authorities. The Criminal Court awarded maintenance allowance to the Respondent No.1 - Shevantabai as a divorcee and not as a first wife of deceased Bhagwan Gite. Such a divorced wife 4 could not have been treated as legally entitled to claim right of inheritance. It appears that the three authorities committed patent error on account of misinterpretation of the finding that she was granted maintenance allowance. 4. Mr.Suryawanshi, has placed on record finding of the Civil Court (RCS No.101/2002) filed by the petitioner against the Respondent No.1 Shevantabai and others for declaration of ownership and injunction. The Civil Court has decreed the suit. It is conspicuous, therefore, that the Respondent No.1 Shevantabai could not be treated as legal heir of deceased Bhagwan. It further appears that the Respondent No.1 Shevantabai has also demised during pendency of the said suit and no heir is left by her. Considering these developments and also the fact that the Respondent No.1 Shevantabai was not at all entitled to claim heirship, the impugned orders will have to be regarded as patently erroneous and arbitrary. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. 5 The impugned orders are quashed. The mutation entry No.265 is restored to its original position. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp720605