1307wp3298.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3298 OF 2011. Devidas Govindrao Mehakare ..vs.. Divisional Commissioner and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R.K.Dhande Adv.for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 13th July, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 19/5/2011 passed by the Commissioner, Amravati Division, by which the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code came to be rejected. 2. The controversy in issue is as regards the mutation entry in respect of land bearing Gat No.143/1, admesuring 2.30 hectare of mauza Kasbegavan, Tq.Anjangaon. The said land was originally of the ownership of the father of the petitioner. After the death of the father of the petitioner, it is the case of the petitioner that on 18/12/2007 his mother and present respondent no.4 i.e. his sister relinquished their respective rights over the said land in favour of the petitioner and executed the Relinquishment Deed before the Executive Magistrate. Relying upon the said Relinquishment Deed, the petitioner got his name mutated in the revenue record on 1307wp3298.11.odt 2 3/10/2010. It is the case of the petitioner that the procedure, prior to making the said entry, was followed by the Talathi. 3. It appears that respondent no.4 on coming to know of the said mutation entry effected in favour of the petitioner challenged the same before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 24/7/2009 allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent no.4 against which the petitioner filed the further Appeal before the Additional Collector, Amravati. The Additional Collector, Amravati was pleased to dismiss the Appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 6/10/2010 which resulted in the filing of the Revision application before the Divisional Commissioner, which Revision application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 19/5/2011. 4. It is required to be noted that the Divisional Commissioner has rejected the said application on the ground that the executor of the said Relinquishment Deed has herself questioned the same and therefore the entry made in favour of the petitioner by Talathi in the year 2008 was wrongly made. The Divisional Commissioner, therefore, did not deem it fit to interfere in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Additional Collector. The Divisional Commissioner further observed that it is for the petitioner to assert his rights based on the said Relinquishment Deed by filing appropriate civil proceedings. 5. It is well settled that the entries in the revenue record are for fiscal purposes and they do not confer any title to the property. If petitioner wants to claim ownership of the property in question relying upon the said Relinquishment Deed, then it would be open for him to assert his said claim in appropriate civil 1307wp3298.11.odt 3 proceedings. If such proceedings are filed needless to state that the same would be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute