1 WP-1610.sxw ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1610 OF 2008 Shri Maruti P. Kadu. ..Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Rangubai G. Pasalkar and anr. ..Respondents. ...... Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, Advocate. for the Respondent No.2. ...... Coram : A.S.OKA, J. Date :13 th October, 2010 PC: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The challenge in this petition is to orders passed by the Authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in Mutation entry proceeding. A mutation entry was made on 20 th December, 1982 which was certified on 9 th December, 1983 on the basis that one Rambhau Laxman Pasalkar died on 2 nd January, 1982. The mutation entry was effected on the footing that the deceased was not survived by any Class I heir Under the Hindu Succession Act , 1956. Suo Motu proceedings of revision were initiated by the Sub 2 WP-1610.sxw Divisional Officer and the mutation entry was set aside on the ground that in fact the said Rambhau had died on 10th October, 1983 and by showing that he died on 2nd January, 1982, the mutation entry was made in favour of the alleged grand son of the said Rambhau. On the ground that the said Rambhau was very much alive on 2nd January, 1982, the revisional power was exercised by setting aside the mutation entry. The said order was confirmed by the Collector. In Revision preferred by the petitioner, the orders have been confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri. Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and ors. Vs. Shri. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and ors. Reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352). He submitted that suo motu power of revision could not have been exercised by the Sub Divisional officer after lapse of 23 years. He placed reliance on the Death Certificate which is annexed at Page 25 of this writ petition. 3 WP-1610.sxw 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. While exercising suo motu powers of revision, the Sub Divisional Officer has observed that a Certificate issued by the Gramsevak was produced before him showing that the said Rambhau died on 10th October, 1983 and the entry of his death in the Gram Panchayat record was made on 20th September, 1989. It is observed that the mutation entry proceeds on the footing that the Rambhau died on 2nd January, 1982 and therefore, when the mutation entry was made, Rambhau was very much alive. It is observed by the Sub Divisional Officer that the mutation entry does not record that the death certificate was produced showing that the Rambhau died on 2nd January, 1982 and without production of Death Certificate, mutation entry was made. It was held that the petitioner was not the legal representative of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not contest the suo motu revision proceedings. 4 Thus, the record produced before the Authorities indicates that when the mutation entry was made on 20th 4 WP-1610.sxw December, 1982 by showing that Rambhau died on 2nd January, 1982, he was very much alive. The Sub Divisional Officer, the Collector and the Additional Commissioner have recorded the aforesaid findings. 5 To get over the said finding, the petitioner is relying upon the Death Certificate annexed at Page 25 of this petition. The Death Certificate shows that it is signed by Gramsevak on 19th January, 2006 and the entry of death of Rambhau was made in the record on 19th January, 2006 itself. The said certificate shows that the entry of alleged death on 2nd January, 1982 was made on 19th January, 2006. Thus, the said entry has been made after the order dated 23rd December 2005 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer by exercising powers of revision holding that the record shows that the correct date of death is 10th October, 1983. On the face of it, the said certificate is suspicious especially when there are concurrent findings of fact that the entry was made in the Gram Panchayat record way back in the year 1989 recording the date of death of Rambhau as 10th October, 1983. 5 WP-1610.sxw 6 Perusal of the Revision Application filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner shows that there was no reliance placed on the alleged Death Certificate dated 19th January, 2006 which is annexed to the petition. As stated earlier, the finding of fact is that the mutation entry was made during the life time of said Rambhau by showing him as dead. The Death Certificate annexed at Page 25 of this petition is exfacie suspicious and cannot be relied upon on the face of the record produced before the three Authorities. The finding of fact based on record is that though the deceased Rambhau was alive, mutation entry showing the name of the present petitioner as his heir was made during his life time. 7 It is true that the powers under Section 257 were invoked belatedly. However, considering the nature of the finding recorded by the Authorities and considering the attempt made by the petitioner by producing a Death Certificate which is ex-facie suspicious, this is not a fit case where the writ jurisdiction can be 6 WP-1610.sxw invoked in favour of the petitioner. In any event, the findings recorded by the Authorities below will not bind the Civil Court in a title suit. Hence, writ petition is rejected. 8 On the prayer made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, ad interim relief granted by this Court on 9th September, 2010 will continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today. JUDGE