1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 318 OF 2008 Kashinath Keshav Thorat and others ...Petitioners Versus Ferojkhan Yakhubkhan Kazi and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for respondent No.1 Mrs. V.A. Shinde, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. ..... CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE OF RESERVATION : 09 .10.2009 OF ORDER DATE OF PRONOUCNEMENT : 14.10.2009 OF ORDER PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner in revision No. 92 of 2006 on 16.6.2008. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and submitted that the authorities below have not properly appreciated the contention of the petitioners that the land in question is covered under the Bombay 2 Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958. Learned counsel invited my attention to the application, which was preferred by the petitioners before the Tahsildar and submitted that there was prayer in the said application that the land was transferred without taking permission of the Collector and without following procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958. Learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Vithal Kondhalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1981 Bom. C.R. 32 and has contended that under the provisions of sub Section 3 of Section 5 of the said Act, it is obligatory to take prior permission of the Collector to release the land from abolition or impartibility on payment of prescribed amount. The learned counsel has further invited my attention to para 3 of the said judgment and submitted that in the instant case the land was transferred without taking prior permission of the Collector and without following procedure laid down in the Act. Learned counsel invited my attention to para 7 of the said judgment and submitted that unless the Collector grants prior permission and except the payment of such amount as determined by the State Government is deposited, the land cannot be re-granted. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the order passed by the Tahsildar on 24.12.2004 under Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966, by which directing to correct the clerical error by recording “new tenure” instead of “old tenure” cannot be faulted with. Learned 3 counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to each and every grounds pleaded in the petition and submitted that petition deserves to be allowed. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that as per order under Section 155 of the Land Revenue Code, the powers are vested in the Tahsildar only to correct the clerical error. Learned counsel invited my attention to the affidavit in reply and taken me through the contents of the said reply and submitted that all three authorities have held against the petitioners and therefore, no interference is warranted by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned AGP appearing for the State has invited my attention to the affidavit in reply and submitted that after following proper procedure the mutation entry No. 1529 and 1538 was effected/taken. 5 After hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the application which was filed by the petitioners before the Tahsildar which is at Exh. “C” at page 21 it clearly appears to me that there was no specific prayer in the said application for change as directed by the Tahsildar to be effected in the revenue record. In fact, on careful perusal of the application filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner prayed that all 4 information in respect of land in question and about the change in the status of the land should be supplied to him and justice should be given to him. It is admitted position that the application which was filed by the petitioner was entertained by theTahsildar under Section 155 of the Revenue Code. On careful perusal of the provisions of Section 155 of the Revenue code when it clearly appears that the said provisions can be invoked only to correct the clerical error. Therefore, the Tahsildar travelled beyond the provisions of Section 155 and passed order in favour of the petitioner. 6 In view of the above circumstances, the authorities below on interpretation of provisions of Section 155 of the Revenue Code held that the order of Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner is not sustainable. On independent reading of the provisions of Section 155 and the impugned judgment and order passed by the authorities below, I do not think that any case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is no substance in the writ petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. *****