1 WP3095/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3095 OF 2010 Smt. Usha w/o Ramdas Wakle and others Petitioners V E R S U S Smt. Mangala w/o Sharad Mutha and others Respondents Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, holding for Mr. H.U. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Respondent Nos. 3 to 12 though served, absent Mr. V.V. Tarde, Advocate for respondent Nos.13, 16 to 18 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 31st March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This writ petition is filed against the Judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik, dated 22nd May, 2008, in Revision No. 369 of 2007. 2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of one Ramdas, who happened to be the grandson of one Hari. It is the case of the petitioners that land survey No. 3/1, admeasuring 1 H 10 R belonged to Hari and members of his joint family including Ramdas, their predecessor. Despite of this, Hari, in 1981, sold area admeasuring about 23.40 R towards north of the land to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In 1996, for the first time, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requested the revenue authorities to enter their names in 7/12 extract of the disputed land to the extent of the area which they purchased. The predecessor of the petitioners, Ramdas, opposed this application on the ground that Hari could not have sold the portion of the disputed land without his and other sharers’ consent. On the basis of this objection, he challenged 2 WP3095/10 the mutation entry. His other contention was that the mutation entry could not have been taken belatedly. Ultimately, this dispute came before the Additional Commissioner in Revision No. 369 of 2007. The submissions made before the learned Additional Commissioner probably were that the land which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 purchased was not part of the land survey No. 3/1. This submission was made by the petitioners and was obviously contrary to what they or their predecessor stated earlier. There was no dispute between the parties in the beginning that Hari had sold portion of land survey No. 3/1 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in 1981. The learned Additional Commissioner thus allowed the appeal and permitted the proposed mutation entry No.18790. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find no error in the impugned order. The writ petition should therefore fail. In view of this, writ petition stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/3095/10/31/3/11