1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3757 OF 2008 (Smt. Gangabai Ghanshyamdas Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 01, 2008. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 to 8. The facts show that the name of the petitioner was included in revenue records after effecting necessary mutation entry on 31.3.1989. Accidentally or inadvertently it came to be deleted and, therefore, steps were taken to have it restored. The authorities found that deletion was accidental and her name ought to have been continued and accordingly records were sent to Naib Tahsildar (Rural) for passing appropriate orders of inclusion. Before the Naib Tahsildar, the present respondents No. 6 to 8 pointed out subsequent Will of the deceased Shankarlal to contend that as per said Will the name of the petitioner could not have been included in revenue records. The learned Naib 2 Tahsildar found that there was dispute between the parties in relation to Will left behind by the deceased Shankarlal and as such a Civil Suit in that respect was pending. He, therefore, refused to include name of the petitioner Gangabai in the revenue records. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel contends that this refusal is arbitrary and unjustified because the mistake which occurred was only directed to be corrected. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel argues that in view of the subsequent Will executed by Shankarlal, when Gangabai is not his successor, her name has rightly been not included or added. The learned AGP supports the impugned order on the basis of last Will left behind by the deceased Shankarlal. The name of the petitioner was added as per the Will in the entry dated 31.3.1989. Thereafter in updating records, her name was deleted though nobody sought such deletion. The subsequent Will of the deceased Shankarlal is being pointed out to say that the said mistake of deletion cannot be rectified. If there is any subsequent Will of deceased Shankarlal, the respondents have to move the revenue authorities for correction of 3 revenue records on the basis of that Will. The name which was already there and deleted accidentally, needs to be brought on record and subsequent Will cannot be an answer to such rectification as ordered by superior authorities. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The name of the petitioner – Gangabai be added in the revenue records as in entry dated 31.3.1989 initially effected. Respondents No. 6 to 8 are free to file appropriate application before the revenue authorities for deletion of her name on the basis of alleged second Will of the deceased Shankarlal. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.