1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6666 OF 2009 Smt. Dropadabai w/o Sahebrao Lagad age 74 years, occ. Household r/o Kolgaon, Tq. Shrigonda Dist. Ahmednagar. Through G.P.A. Shri Kailas s/o Sahebrao Lagad age 55 years, occ. Service and agril. r/o Shrigonda factory, Tq. Shrigonda Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The Deputy Director of Land Record Nashik Division, Nashik 2 The Superintendent of Land Record Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3 Taluka Inspector of Land Record Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4 Dada s/o Shankarrao Lagad age 58 years, occ. Agril. 5 Dattatraya s/o Shankarrao Lagad age 57 years, occ. Agril 6 Balasaheb s/o Shankarrao Lagad age 49 years, occ. Agril. Respondent nos. 4 to 6 r/o Kolgaon Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 7 The Village Panchayat Kolgaon 2 Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Village Development Officer. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. N.V. Gavare , advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. V.L. Patil, advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 6. Mr. K.S. Bhore, advocate for respondent no. 7. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Dispute relates to house no. 630 C.T.S. no. 961 which is claimed by the petitioner to be belonging to him. It is contended that the property was wrongly mutated in the name of State of Maharashtra. As such, petitioner moved applications to respondent no. 2 in the year 1982 and 1995 for effecting change and mutating his name in the city survey record. However, 3 it appears that no effective steps were taken. An appeal was preferred to the Superintendent of Land Record, Ahmednagar bearing no. 1253/2001 which came to be allowed and direction was issued to mutate the property bearing CTS no. 931 in the name of petitioner herein. Appellate authority also directed striking off name of State of Maharashtra from the record maintained by the city survey authority. It is contended that the corrections in pursuant to the order passed by the appellate authority were carried out. State of Maharashtra did not prefer any appeal. However, objection was raised by respondent nos. 4 to 6 in respect of recording of entry in the name of the petitioner. Respondents contend that they are the owners and possessors of adjoining property bearing CTS no. 960 house no. 630. Disputed property is claimed by the respondents being the property belonging to their family. It transpires that the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nasik Division, Nasik caused interference in the matter and remitted the case to Taluka Inspector of Land Records for fresh enquiry as contemplated by provisions of section 20(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. The first order was passed by the Deputy Director Land Records, Nasik Division, Nasik on 30-10-2006. 4 Petitioner herein preferred Writ Petition no.1002/2006 raising exception 4 to the order passed by the appellate authority. Writ petition presented by the petitioner, after extending opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned was allowed by this court and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority was quashed and set aside. It was observed by this court that the issue in respect of applicability of section 20(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code shall be dealt with by respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director of Land Records and, respondent no. 1 also to consider whether in the light of findings the matter is required to be remitted back to the Taluka Inspector of Land Record. It was also observed in the judgment that it would be necessary for respondent no. 1 to pinpoint the property which is involved and then arrive at a conclusion while deciding the appeal. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for consideration by respondent no. 1 once again. However, the appellate authority by order dt. 16-11-2007 confirmed the initial order which was subjected to challenge in this court in writ petition referred to above. Appellate authority did not strictly comply with the directions issued by this court while disposing of writ petition preferred by the petitioner. Order passed by respondent no. 1 was on second occasion subjected to challenge at the instance of petitioner in Writ Petition no. 7320/2007. This court finding that the judgment rendered by the appellate authority is not in conformity with the direction issued by the court, was required to remit the 5 matter back to respondent no. 1 for rendering decision afresh. Writ petition presented by the petitioner was thus allowed and the matter was remitted to respondent no. 1 on second occasion in view of order passed on 24 th July, 2008. Respondent no. 1 again took up the matter for consideration on third occasion and committed the same mistake. 5 It is necessary to note that he is the same official occupying the office of Deputy Director of Land Records, Nasik Division, Nasik who has dealt with the matter on all the three occasions. This court finding that the order passed by respondent no. 1 is in violation of the order passed by this court, was required to issue notice of contempt directing the official to remain present before the court and answer the charge. Respondent no. 1 submitted his explanation which was accepted by this court and notice issued for initiating action of contempt was withdrawn. Although the notice issued against respondent no. 1 for initiating action of contempt was withdrawn, still I find that the order passed by respondent no. 1 is in violation of the directions issued by this court. It is required to be noted that on two occasions the official has dared to violate the directions issued by this court and dealt with the matter again in most casual manner. A serious note in that regard is required to be taken by the higher official and as such, I direct 6 that copy of this court be transmitted for taking appropriate action against the official Shri Muley, Deputy Director of Land Records, Nasik Division, Nasik. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary, Revenue department with direction to take appropriate action against the official concerned. As stated above, order passed by respondent no. 1 being in violation of the direction issued by this court, it needs to be quashed and set aside. Order passed by respondent no. 1 dt. 7-7-2009 is thus quashed and set aside. 6 It is well established that the entires recorded in the survey register are for fiscal purpose and that in itself is not an evidence of title or entitlement of the parties in relation to the property. It would be open for the aggrieved party i.e. respondent nos. 4 to 6 to get their rights established from the competent court and the decision rendered by the competent civil court in relation to title to the property or entitlement of the party in relation to the property shall over ride the decisions of the survey official and it would be obligatory to correct the record in tune with the decision that would be rendered by the civil court. In view of above observations, rule is made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 7 7 Copy of this judgment be remitted to the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department for necessary action. It is further directed to the Secretary to report to this court as to what steps are taken in pursuance to the directions issued by this court, within reasonable time. The officer is further directed to issue show cause otice to Shri Muley, Deputy Director of Land Records presently posted at Aurangabad, calling upon him to show cause why action shall not be taken against him for disobeying directives issued by this court, repeatedly. On receipt of explanation from said official, further cause of action would be decided. 8 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp6666.09.odt