1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2349 OF 2002 1 Rangnath Kisan Gadekar, Age 48 years, occ. Agriculture, 2 Rajgopal Mulchand Bajaj, Age 38 years, Occ. Agriculture, Both R/o. Paradi, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad ...Petitioners Versus 1 Kum. Vaishali Chaturbhuj SHinde, Age 14 years, 2 Kum. Vandana Chaturbhuj Shinde, Age 10 years, 3 Kum Meera Chaturbhuj Shinde, Age 8 years, Nos. 1 to 3 are minors u/g mother Mangal w/o. Chaturbhuj Shinde, Age 36 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Mankeshwar, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad 4 Mangal w/o. Chaturbhuj Shinde, Age 36 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Mankeshwar, Tq. paranda, District Osmanabad 5 Kamgar Talathi, Mankeshwar, Tq.Paranda, District Osmanabad 6 Tahsildar, Bhoom, District Osmanabad 7 Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom District Osmanabad 8 Additional Collector, Osmanabad, District Osmanabad 2 9 Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Regional, Aurangabad 10 The Secretary and Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), Revenue and Forest Department State of Maharashtra, Mumbai 11 State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.J. Dixit, senior counsel, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Thombre, advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. N.D. Kendre, AGP for the respondents 5 to 11. ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 29.08.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 07.09.2009 JUDGMENT:- 1 This writ petition is directed against the final judgment and order dated 30.3.1994 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom, in file No. 1993/ROR/727, the order dated 23.3.1996 by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad in Case No. RTS/69/93/94 and the order dated 16.12.1998 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad 3 Division, Aurangabad in Case No. 96/ReV/R/143. 2 The background facts of the case as as under:- The subject matter of this writ petition is a mutation entry No. 976 by Tahsildar on 8.7.1991 in respect of land Gat No. 650 admeasuring 1 H 41 R situated at village Mankeshwar in Osmanabad district. The said land was originally owned by Ganpati Shinde and after his death, it was by inheritance came to his two sons viz. Baban and Chaturbhuj, now both the sons are dead. In the year 1988, an oral partition between deceased Baban and Chaturbhuj, in which Narayan sought 3 H 2 R portion from land Gat No.650 was allotted to the share of Chaturbhuj and remaining southern portion was given to the share of heirs of deceased Baban. Chaturbhuj sold the portion of of 1 H 41 R tot he petitioner No.1 for his medical expenses by registered sale deed dated 14.11.1987 and mutation entry to that effect was made on 2.7.1986. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, who are L.Rs. of Chaturbhuj filed R.C.S. No. 35 of 1987 in the Court of C.J.S.D. Paranda on 16.11.1987 for the relief that the sale deed executed between the parties are not binding on the legal heirs of deceased Chaturbhuj and prayed that the suit came to be dismissed on 30.7.1999. 4 On 18.6.1991 i.e. during pendency of the R.C.S. No. 35 of 1987, the petitioner No.1 herein executed registered sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 and mutation entry No. 976 was certified on 8.7.1991. Respondent No.1 to 4 herein applied to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom for cancellation of the mutation entry No. 976. The Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated 30.3.1994 set aside the mutation entry No.976. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed R.T.S. Appeal No. 59 of 1994 before the Additional Collector, Osmanabad and by his order dated 23.2.1996 the said appeal came to be dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioner filed revision before Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad which came to be dismissed by order dated 16.12.1998. The petitioner filed another revision application before the State Government. By order dated 7.11.2001, the same revision came to be dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 was never challenged by the respondents, and therefore, the further registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.2 cannot be questioned. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 also became absolute owner of the property on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by Chaturbhuj during his life time in the year 1983. It is further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 became absolute owner of the property, he validly transferred the 5 said property to petitioner No.2 and the Revenue Officers have duly certified the mutation entries to that effect. In view of this, it is not open for the Revenue authority to cancel the mutation entry and its certification and that too after lapse of so many years. It is further submitted that the sale deed was never challenged by the respondents and the petitioner No.1 was competent to sale the suit land in favour of the petitioner No.2, therefore, the said transaction dated 18.6.1991 in favour of petitioner No.2. by the petitioner No.1 cannot be doubted or set aside. According to the learned senior counsel, principle of lis pendency are not applicable in the revenue proceedings in any case that can be validly made under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue code, 1966, Learned counsel has invited my attention to the grounds in the petition and submitted that setting aside the mutation entry amounts to serious consequences including the consequences of suspending the sale deed and such power is not vested in the revenue forum as contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that the suit filed by the respondent herein is already dismissed and therefore, in any case the order of cancellation of mutation entry cannot be permitted. The authorities below have failed to prove that the mutation entry No. 976 as well as entry 469 have been drawn and duly certified as per law. There is no any reason to cancel the same. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 6 4 Though the contesting respondents are duly served and appearance is filed on their behalf, none appears for them. 5 I have carefully perused the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the order passed by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Vision, Aurangabad and the order passed by the Secretary and Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), Revenue and Forest Department and found that the S.D.O. Bhoom, Additional Collector, Osmanabad and Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad have recorded the findings that the mutation entry No. 976 was taken by the Tahsildar on 20.6.1991 pending the R.C.S. No. 35 of 1987 without issuing notice to the respondents, though the present petitioner was defendant in the said suit and he was aware that the R.C.S. No. 35 of 1987 is pending, therefore, the authorities found that the Tahsildar has certified mutation entry No.976 without notice to the respondents herein, who are original plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 35 of 1987 and therefore, S.D.O. in the appeal of the respondent set aside the order of Tahsildar sanctioning the mutation entry 976. On careful perusal of the findings recorded by the authorities, it clearly emerges that all three authorities have taken reasonable and plausible view. 6 Therefore, in writ jurisdiction, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the courts below. There is no substance in 7 in the writ petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, stands vacated. 7 It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner to apply afresh for mutation entry in the light of the pleadings of the petitioners that subsequently R.C.S. No.35 of 1987 is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) rlj/