1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5511 OF 2010 (SURESH BHAYYALAL DAHARWAL & OTH..VS.. SMT. PUSHPA S. DAHARWAL & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.A.V.Bhide, Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs. Indira Bodade, A.G.P. for Respondents /State. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 09, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records on 05.05.2010 as also the order dated 08.03.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Land Records deleting the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners and holding that the entries be recorded in the names of all the legal representatives of Late Shri Bhayyalal Daharwal. 3. After the death of Bhayyalal Daharwal and Babulal Daharwal the property left behind by the aforesaid two persons was mutated in the name of the legal representatives of Bhayyalal and Babulal Daharwal. For the first time, in the year 2004, the petitioners sought to mutate their names on record in place of the legal representatives of Bhayyalal and Babulal Daharwal. Without issuing any notices to the legal representatives the mutation entry was made in the name of the petitioners. The Legal Representatives of Bhayyalal and Babulal Daharwal filed an appeal against the action of the City Survey Officer mutating the names of the petitioners in respect of the properties in question. The 2 appeal filed by the respondents/ legal representatives of Bhayyalal and Babulal Daharwal was allowed and the order passed by the City Survey Officer was set aside. Since the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners on 04.02.2004 was set aside, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nagpur Region, Nagpur seeking to set aside the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records dated 08.03.2007 and maintain the mutation entry dated 04.02.2004. The Deputy Director of Land Records, Nagpur Region, Nagpur however, by the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the authorities did not commit any error in setting aside the mutation entries dated 04.02.2004 and confirming the entries in favour of the legal representatives of Bhayyalal and Babulal Daharwal. The authorities found that after the death of Bhaiyalal Daharwal the entries were taken in the names of his legal representatives and in case, the name of the petitioners is entered in the records on the basis of the will it would amount to taking away of the rights of other heirs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities found that it was not proper to delete the names of other heirs and the petitioners could have got their ownership rights adjudicated from the competent Civil Court on the basis of the will. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that it was necessary for the authorities to have mutated the names of the petitioners in the revenue record on the basis of the registered will as the registered will conferred ownership of the suit property on the petitioners cannot be accepted as in its discretion the authority has rightly held that it was 3 necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to maintain the names of all the legal representatives of deceased Babulal and Bhayyalal Daharwal on the suit properties. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners to show that it is mandatory for the authorities to mutate the name of a particular party in the revenue record on the basis of the will and that on the existence of the will names of the other heirs cannot be recorded. At this stage the provisions of Section 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are brought to the notice of this Court. However, they do not show that it would be necessary for the authorities to mutate the name of a person claiming to be the successor of the deceased on the basis of the will, specially when the legal representatives of the deceased person have already recorded their names in the record and have opposed the prayer for mutation of the name of the person in the record on the basis of the will. 5. Even otherwise the mutation entries do not confer title on a party and the authorities rightly held that the parties were free to get their ownership rights adjudicated from a competent Civil Court, specially the petitioners who could have got their ownership rights adjudicated on the basis of the will. 6. Since the orders passed by both the authorities do not suffer from any error no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..