2015 Supreme(SC) 1060

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan, JJ.
Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5102 of 2006
Decided on : 06-11-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional jurisdiction of State Government being concurrent with that of the Revenue officers if one party goes to Commissioner in revision, other party can still approach State Government for revision.

Headnote:(a) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 – Section 257 – Use of words ‘and’ for State Government and ‘or’ for other Revenue officers – Suggesting jurisdiction of State Government to be concurrent with other Revenue officers – One party going to Commissioner in revision – Other party can still approach State Government for revision – State Government entitled to examine legality and propriety of any decision/order passed in revision by the Revenue officers (Para 27)

       (2005) 2 SCC 334 – Relied upon

       (2002) SCC on line, Bombay 1222; AIR 1965 SC 1585; AIR 1963 SC 698 : (1962) Suppl.(1) SCR 933; (1988) 2 SCC 172; (1987) 3 SCC 538; (1993) 1 SCC 43 – Referred

       (b) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 – Sections 5, 11 and 259 – All Revenue officers subordinate to State Government – State Government alone entitled to modify, annul or reverse any decision or order passed under Section 247 or 257. (Para 28, 29)

       Facts of the case:

       Survey Nos.118, 328 and 351 of Lonavala were originally owned by one Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu. The lands belonging to him were entered as Evacuee Property by the Tahsildar, Maval on 26.10.1949. It appears that these survey numbers were also given C.T.S. No. 129, 130-A, 130-B and 133. It appears that in CTS No.129, 130-A, 130-B and 133, apart from vacant land there is a bungalow No.52-Habib Villa. It appears that the Regional Settlement Commissioner placed this property for auction through Government Auctioner and one Gulabbai Desai purchased the said property in auction and, accordingly, sale certificate was issued by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay on behalf of the Government. In the said sale certificate the C.T.S. No 129, 130-A, 130-B and 133 of Village Lonavala were mentioned.

       Mutation Entry No.1836 was effected in the village record in favour of Gulabai Desai, and thereby her name was entered in Survey Nos.118/1B and 328 of village Lonavala to the extent of 29.30 Ares and 70 Ares respectively. Thereafter, Gulabai sold CTS No.133 admeasuring 33 Gunthas on 24.4.1977 to Respondent No.3 Genu Kadu. The said Gulabai also gifted her remaining area from this Survey numbers to her grandson Anil Gajanan Desai on 15.1.1979, who in turn has sold his properties to Respondent no.2 - Prem Hasmatraj Lalwani in the year 1980.

       The Survey Nos.118/2 and 351, being Evacuee Properties, were allotted to the Appellant in the year 1956. Later on, it was found that the Appellant is in possession of more area and, therefore, the said order was modified on 6.5.1982 and excess area was granted to the Appellant on payment of Rs.31,360/-, and thereby the Deputy Collector and Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Pune granted the excess land to the Appellant, and thereafter the dispute started between the parties.

       The Appellant made grievance to the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties in respect of the Mutation made in favour of the Respondent Gulabai and other Respondents.

       The Sub-Divisional Officer, Haveli, Sub Division, Pune, initiated revision proceeding and cancelled the mutation Entry No.1836 which comprises land admeasuring 7897 sq. yards and directed necessary corrections in the record as per the observations made in the order.

       However, instead of giving effect to those orders, it appears that the Revenue Officers at Tahsil level effected two mutations, viz, Mutation No.2377 and 2394. By mutation entry No.2377 the name of respondent was again mutated in the record and by the mutation Entry No.2394 the name of Genu Kadu was mutated in the record. Since the Collector noticed on complaint that the orders of the Collector has been bypassed or surpassed by the Subordinate Revenue Officers, the Collector by order dated 12.7.1999 directed the SDO to take these mutations namely mutation Entry No.2377 and 2394 in revision and therefore the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maval Division has taken these mutations in revision bearing RTS Revision No.12 of 1999. The said revision was decided by the Sub Divisional officer at Maval on 28.1.2000 and those mutations were cancelled.

       Revision petitions thereagainst were dismissed up to the stage of State Minister for Revenue.

       Appellant challenged the order passed by the Minister by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.