JUDGMENT - NAIK A.B., J.:---In this petition the petitioner sought following reliefs. :

"(A) Call for the Record and Proceedings of Rev. Revision No. RTS-5391/CR-199/L-6/CR-44/93, A R. from the respondent No. 1s Office i.e. from the officer on Special Duty and Secretary, (Appeals and Revision), Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, and

(B) The writ petition be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 1 on 2-11-1993 vide Exhibit H be set aside and to sanction the rectification of ROR entries in favour of the petitioner i.e. Mutation No. 666 vide Exhibit C based on the actual possession of the land in question."

3. Few facts that are necessary to be considered in deciding this writ petition. The respondents herein/original revision petitioner filed revision application under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in which the present petitioner was the opponent. The parties will be referred to as per their description before the Revisional Authority i.e. State Government and they will be referred to hereinafter as revisional petitioner and opponent.

4. Land S. No. 86 admeasuring 33 acres 37 gunthas situate at village Ahmedpur, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur, (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) was admittedly owned and possessed by one Babu Teli, who died leaving behind him three sons. It is the case of the parties that after death of Babu Teli the land was divided amongst the brothers on the basis of the fertility of the land. It appears from the record that intimation was given to the revenue authorities as required under section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as Code). Pursuant to the said intimation, Tahsildar conducted spot inspection some time in the year 1964 and he noticed that the division was not equal and rejected the theory of partition and ordered that each brothers had equal share in the suit land. On the basis of the decision of the Tahsildar a mutation entry has been taken and certified on 5-11-1964 being mutation entry No. 299. Vide this mutation entry the names of three brothers i.e. the sons of deceased Baburao Teli were recorded in respect of the suit land in equal shares.

5. This position was continued till 1979 and in the year 1979 the opponent Sambhappa gave an application to Tahsildar that he was cultivating S. No. 86/1/3 admeasuring 1 hectare 58 ares but on that portion the name of his brother Bandappa is recorded in Kabjedars column, and he requested the Tahsildar to delete the name of Bandappa and record his name as Kabjedar in 7/12 extract in respect of that portion of the suit land.

6. The Tahsildar on the basis of the said application conducted an enquiry and by his order dated 9th September, 1981 rejected the application filed by the opponent. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 9th September, 1981 passed by the Tahsildar rejecting the application, the opponent preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Udgir being Appeal No. 1981/ROR/128 (Ahmedpur ME No. 666). This appeal came to be allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Udgir by his judgment and order dated 15-7-1985 and ordered that, name of the opponent in the record of rights as owner of land Gat No. 86/1/3 to the extent of 1 hectare and 54 ares to be recorded.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Udgir, the revision petitioners preferred appeal before the Collector under section 247 of the Code. When the appeal filed by Bandappa was pending before the Collector, he died and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record and they continued the litigation thereafter. The Additional Collector, Latur by his judgment and order dated 28-6-1988 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

8. On dismissal of appeal by the Additional Collector, heirs of Ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document