1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 6. WP/8035/2009 (YOHAN SAKHARAM GAIKWAD AND OTHERS. V/S THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER NASHIK AND OTHERS.) with CA ST.NO.29420/2010 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.N.V.Gaware, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. V.G.Shelke, AGP for the respondent State. Mr. V.D.Hon, Adv., for respondent no.4. Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, Adv., for intervenor in CA St.No. 29420/2010. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:5/10/2010 1. Heard extensively. The controversy revolves to grant of mutation entry No.960, dt. 22.12.1982 or 15.12.1982. There is no controversy about such mutation entry No.960 though dates are little confusing. Hence, no hassles for the same. 2. It is this crucial entry no. 960, which was tested by the 2 petitioner before the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Nagar, in RTS Appeal No.75/1996. Learned Sub Divisional Officer did not concede to the urge of the petitioner and rejected the appeal. Thereafter, same was subjected to a challenge before the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, who by order dt. 14.2.2002, did not agree to the petitioner and dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the Sub Divisional Officer in Appeal No.75/1996. This was again tested by the petitioner before the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik, remanded/remitted the matter to the authorities concerned. Thereafter, again, a second round and, by order dt.25.5.2009, the revision of the present petitioner was rejected. All these orders are questioned in the present writ. 3. It is a matter of record, respondent no.5 filed RCS No. 566/1996, seeking declaration of 3 ownership, claiming adverse possession and lost, by order and judgment dt.21.1.2000. Challenge to the same by Regular Civil Appeal No.138/2000 was also negated by order dt.6.7.2002. Respondent No.5 carried the same in Second Appeal No.1511/2004 and by order dt.21.11.2008, the second appeal was dismissed observing that respondent no.4 could not establish his assertion to be owner in adverse possession, relating to suit property. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, while deciding R.C.A.No.138/2000 has observed that the effect of the revenue entries is for the fiscal purposes there is no controversy over the same. 5. The principal contention of Mr.N.V.Gaware, learned Counsel for the petitioner is, while effecting any mutation in the revenue record and, particularly, effecting mutation entry no.960, procedure, as prescribed under the 4 law is to be necessarily followed. To emphasize his point, he took me to provisions of Sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and also invited attention specifically to the proviso to Section 150(6) thereof. There cannot be a controversy on the legal position, as is indicated. At the same time, one should not be oblivious to the provisions incorporated in Sections 250 and 251 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. They also have their equal importance. A time frame is kept under Section 250 to challenge the orders before the appropriate authorities. It was expected of the petitioner herein to challenge the mutation entry before the competent authorities within the specified period of either 60 days or 90 days. There is no such exercise carried out by the petitioner. The petitioners need not plead ignorance of insulation. The petitioner asserts that since the orders in entry No.960 itself being an illegality, he need not 5 to adhere to the requisition contemplated in Sections 250 or 251 of the Code. It cannot be digested. The authorities, by order dt.27.11.1998, thereafter, subsequent orders, referred here- in-above and by the last order dt. 25.5.2009, have, in unequivocal words, indicated that the mutation entry of 1982 was challenged for the first time by the petitioner in 1996. There was no application seeking to condone the delay and, consequently, the exercise in terms of Section 251 of the Code could not be coined and initiated to redress the contentions of the petitioner. 6. Another facet of the matter is, there was already mutation entry no.896 effected at the instance of the petitioner or his forefathers. The petitioners staked claim to the said property by virtue of being legal representatives of Natha Hanumant. This mutation entry dt.12.11.1981 was canceled/terminated by order dt.29.12.1981 as the petitioner or 6 forefathers did not produce death certificate of Natha Hanmant. It is not in controversy that the mutation entry No.896 and 960 contemplate the same agricultural field. If the mutation entry no. 896 was terminated against the petitioner, he was conscious about reasons for the same. Inspite of the same, he did not challenge it anywhere, anytime. That apart, challenge subsequently to entry No.960 being belated, has lost its importance. 7. If the petitioner is in possession of land, he has his remedies in competent Civil Court, which he is at liberty to establish and get appropriate orders from the competent forum. Sitting in writ, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope being limited, Art.227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. I do not see any perversity or illegality in the orders referred here-in-before. 7 The orders are within limits of powers vested in the Authorities. 8. Any observations made by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, either in RCS No. 566/1996 or in RCA No. 138/2000, by itself, will not be a feature to decide the fate of mutation entry no.960 effected in favour of several persons, including respondent no.4. 9. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. No costs. Interim orders to remain in force for a period of two months. Intervention application disposed of. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/8035-09wp