( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5912 OF 2010 Karbhari Gangaram Ghodke and another PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. B.N. Palve, advocate for the petitioners. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioners claimed that during the course of execution, there was adjustment of the decree and, therefore, they were in possession of the lands about which the mutation entry was recorded in their favour. They further asserted that they were shown in the cultivating possession and a panchanama was drawn on 23-12-2005. ( 2 ) 3. The basic claim of the petitioners is on strength of adjustment which was said to have been effected during course of execution. Admittedly, the adjustment is not certified as contemplated under Order-XXI Rule-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, noticed that the enquiry was held by the Tahsildar in his office and that the Tahsildar did not visit the lands in question while recording the mutation entry. The learned Divisional Commissioner further noticed that the enquiry was scheduled in the office of the Tahsildar and the statements of the adjoining owners were not recorded by the Tahsildar, but that such statements were brought before the Tahsildar which were in the form of the typed copies prepared by some advocate. In other words, it was found that there was no enquiry held while sanctioning the mutation entry, as contemplated under the relevant Rules. It is for such reason that the learned Divisional Commissioner allowed the revision application and quashed the relevant orders issued by the Tahsildar, S.D.O. and the Additional Commissioner. 4. Considering the reasons assigned by the learned Divisional Commissioner and in view of the fact that there is non-compliance of Order-XXI Rule-2 of the Civil Procedure ( 3 ) Code, no substantial patent error or perversity is noticed from the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5912-10