:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 924 OF 2008 Abdul Sattar Haji Usman and anr. ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharadshtra & ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.C.M.Korde, Senior Advocate a/w. Ramesh Ramamurthy, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Saluja, AGP for Respondnet nos.1 to 5. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 15TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders arising as they are from proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. These proceedings pertain to mutation or Revenue entries. They do not conclude Issues with regard to right, title or interest to the lands. These proceedings are essentially aimed at collecting the land revenue and facilitating the same. The Minister has recorded that :2: :2: :2: some civil proceedings are pending. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere. 2. Mr.Korde, invites my attention to the fact that all survey numbers or in any event other than those bearing CTS No. 38 and 40 were not subject matter of the Revision Application or proceedings from which the subject Revision application arose. In such circumstances, an omnibus direction to probe and investigate insertion of revenue entries in other C.T. survey numbers was wholly uncalled for. 3. Mr.Saluja, learned AGP appearing for the State, invited my attention to the impugned order and contends that the same read as a whole, would justify the direction in that behalf. 4. In my view, the Learned Revisional authority should have confined itself to the legality and correctness of the order that has been passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Konkan Region, Mumbai which was regarding CTS No. 38, 38/1 to 3, 40, 40/1 to 129. The other Revenue entries bearing No. 12990 and :3: :3: :3: 12994 are not demonstrated to be related to the City Survey numbers mentioned hereinabove. If they pertain to other lands, then, issuance of a blanket direction was not necessary. If there were any irregularities with regard to the above lands, then, irrespective of the Minister’s direction, the Authorities could have investigated and probed into the same. There was no necessity of issuing any direction to inquire. Similarly, if proceedings are required to be undertaken, suo-moto, that also was open to the Authorities, if the facts and circumstances, so warrant. There is substance in the apprehension that the Minister issuing such a direction and inquiry would mean that the Authorities are bound to hold it. In such circumstances, the direction (Direction No.2) in the order of the Revenue Minister is quashed and set aside leaving open all remedies and powers of the Authorities intact. The rest of the order is maintained. The Writ Petition is disposed off with the above clarification. sd/- **********