(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1264 OF 1998 1. Kashinath Ganpat Kadlag, Age : 76 years, 2. Raghunath Ganpat Kadlag, Age : 70 years, 3. Jagannath Ganpat Kadlag, Age : 68 years, Occupation of all Agriculture, All r/o. : Jawale Kadlag, Taluka : Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar. 2. The Advocate General of Maharashtra, Advocate General's Office, High Court Extension Building, Mumbai. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as also, Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, state that the controversy in the matter is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 4th August 2010, delivered in bunch of Writ Petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 1278/1998, Writ Petition No. 1279/1998 and companion petitions. 2. Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, points out that in revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, almost after 12 - 13 years, respondent no.1 has reviewed the mutation entries. 3. The Hon. Division Bench has found that power can (3) be exercised within reasonable time i.e. within a period of three years. 4. In this situation, I find controversy squarely covered by the above mentioned Division Bench judgment. 5. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "D". In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1264