(1) WP. 942.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 942 OF 2010 Smt. Rashidabee w/o Abdul Halim .. Petitioner VERSUS Abdul Halim Sardarmiyan Sayed and others .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 5979 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 942 OF 2010 Smt. Rashidabee w/o Abdul Halim .. Applicant VERSUS Abdul Halim Sardarmiyan Sayed and others .. Respondents Mr. C.K.Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the respondent no.1 Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] By this Petition, the petitioner who is wife of respondent no.1 seeks to challenge the order dated 24.11.2009 rendered by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur in Revision Application no. 15 of 2009. By that order, the learned Sub Divisional Officer cancelled mutation entry no. 1297 recorded in the name of the petitioner. The land in question (2) WP. 942.2010 i.e. survey no. 32/3/1 is admittedly the ancestral property of the respondent no.1. The petitioner submitted application to the Tahsildar for recording her name in the 7/12 record for the reason that the respondent no.1 was old aged and used to wander here and there. She alleged that the respondent no.1 was responsible for maintaining herself and the family members and for such purpose her name was sought to be recorded for the reason that he shall not alienate the suit land. It appears that her name was mutated under some scheme called “Laxmi Mukti Mahila Yojna”. Admittedly, she has no right of ownership in respect of the land in question. She has also instituted a suit against the respondent no.1 (Regular Civil Suit no. 30 of 2009). The mutation entry was cancelled by the learned Sub Divisional Officer for the reason that the case of the petitioner was not covered by the so called scheme nor her name could be mutated without having any independent right in her favour. 2] Counsel for the petitioner would submit that after 5 years revisional authority ought not to have interferred with the mutation entry which was existing. He relies upon certain observations in “Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and ors. V. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others 2009 AIR SCW 6305”. The Apex Court held that no time limit is prescribed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Revenue Code, 1966 for the purpose of entertaining the revisional (3) WP. 942.2010 jurisdiction. Still however, it was held that exercise of revisional powers after lapse of 17 years could not be regarded as entertaining of revision within a reasonable time. It is observed that ordinarily reasonable period would be of 3 years. In the present case, there is absolutely no basis for the mutation entry and the mutation entry was recorded without giving any notice to the respondent no.1 and under the guise that the petitioner was covered by scheme called "Laxmi Mukti Mahila Yojna". Obviously, it is not an ordinary case and therefore, exercise of revisional jurisdiction after a period of 4-5 years could not be regarded as bad in law. 3] In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is destitute of merits and is dismissed. Civil Application (St.) no. 5979 of 2010 also stands disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp