1 wp2635.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2635 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 Order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in the matter of mutation is assailed before this Court contending that the respondent ought to have obtained the probate of will dated 31.01.2001. It is further argued that in Revision filed by petitioners, an order to their prejudice could not have been passed and as the respondent had not challenged the order impugned in Revision, that order dated 12.07.2005 could not have been varied to their advantage. Lastly, it is contended that the lands were allotted by the State Government and hence, without previous permission, there could not have been any transfer. Learned Counsel attempts to urge that issue of probate was not considered by any of the 2 wp2635.11 authorities till the appellate order dated 22.07.2005. 2. The issue of permission is looked into by the Revisional Authority and it has found that the permission was required only for effecting transfers inter-vives in view of the reported judgment of this Court reported at "2004(4) Mh.L.J. 886 (Prabhakar Chinappa Chavan V/s State of Maharashtra). The judgment squarely covered the field and that finding can not be said to be either erroneous or perverse. In so far as approach of Revisional Court is concerned, the jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code need not be invoked by any body. The authority therefore has applied its mind, found that there was registered will dated 31.01.2001 and hence, that will needed to be honoured. In view of that finding, it has modified appellate order also. Contention that in revision filed by petitioner, impugned order could not have been varied to their disadvantage is misconceived. I do not see any jurisdictional error even in this approach. 3. The provisions of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act are very clear in this respect. Here, the registered will deed is dated 31.01.2001 which not in relation to properties mentioned in the said provision. The controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court reported at "1979 Mh.L.J. 308" Jyoti W/o Jagdish Singhai V/s State of Maharashtra. Filing of probate 3 wp2635.11 proceedings was therefore not necessary at all. 4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by will, he has to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In those proceedings, finding of Revenue Authorities can not be given importance. Hence, with liberty to petitioner to take such steps as he may be advised, present Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2635.11