19.07wp.2209.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2209 /2011 (Kamalkishor Lonkaran Verma vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 19th July, 2011. Heard Mr. A.S.Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr Adgokar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Y.S. Gorle, for respondent no.3 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner by which order, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 28.1.2011 came to be rejected. The dispute in question is as regards the mutation in respect of land bearing Gut No. 103 area admeasuring 8.66 hectare of Mouze Gandhigram Tq. & Dist. Akola. The appeal filed by the petitioner was against the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 28.1.2011 which order was passed in the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 herein. By the said order, the Additional Collector set aside the mutation made in favour of the petitioner and directed the mutation to be made in favour of respondent no.3. It is the said order which was challenged before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, inter alia on two grounds : firstly that the pursis filed by the petitioner for conversion of the appeal to revision could not be accepted 19.07wp.2209.11.odt 2 and, secondly, the petitioner has divested himself of the title by executing sale deed on 29.3.2010 and hence the appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. In my view, the reasons mentioned by the Additional Collector do not warrant any interference in the fact-situation of the present case. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open for the purchasers from the petitioner to file an application for mutating their names in the revenue record based on the registered documents in their favour and if such an application is made, needless to say that the authority concerned would consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. JUDGE sahare