A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated May 10, 1989, passed by the then Minister of State for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 2), in Revision No. RTS-2789/1/CR-39/L/6. The lands in question are Survey Nos. 62 and 66 respectively Situated at village Ashagad, Taluka Dahanu, District Thane. the said lands being inam lands were governed by the Bombay Merged territories and Area (Jagir Abolition) Act. 1953, as well as the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955. The revenue record mentions that Shri Yeshwantrao Mukne, the Ex-Ruler of the then Jawhar State, was watandar in respect of the said lands. On October 8, 1976, an application was filed by the Petitioner, which was jointly signed by the said Watandar Mukne, addressed to the Tahsildar, Dahanu, for recording the status of the Petitioner as a tenant and also for granting permission to sell the said lands. The said application was obviously a composite application praying for recording the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record as tenant and also for granting permission to sell the said lands in favour of the Petitioner. As far as the former relief is concerned, the same is referable to the intimation sent by the parties within the meaning of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code"), which requires that any person acquiring any right, such as, occupant, lessee or otherwise, shall report orally or in writing about his acquisition of such right to the Talathi within three months from the date of such acquisition. On receipt of such application, the Talathi is required to give written acknowledgement of the receipt of such report to the person making it or the applicant. Before the Talathi records the proposed change in the Register of Mutation, having regard to Section 150(2) of the said Code, he is obliged to follow the prescribed procedure. The said provision requires display of written intimation of such change in a consp0icuous place in Chawdi and further give written intimation to all persons appearing from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be interested in the mutation and to any other person whom the Talathi has reason to believe to be interested therein. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the present case, after following necessary procedure, the concerned Talathi effected change in the mutation on the basis of his order dated May 22, 1977, as no objection was received from any person. As is seen earlier, the Watandar himself had jointly signed the subject application. This fact is recorded in the Mutation Entry No. 748 while effecting the proposed change in terms of the application made by the Petitioner and the Watandar. The said Mutation Entry No. 748 came to be confirmed on June 12, 1977, and also certified by the appropriate authority, which was allowed to attain finality. Suffice it to mention that after the said Mutation Entry was effected, an agreement was executed between the Petitioner and the said Watandar on May 26, 1978 to transfer the said lands. For the purpose of present proceedings, it is not necessary for us to dwell upon the issue as to whether the transfer actually materialized or not, for we are concerned only with the correctness and propriety of the change effected in the Mutation Entry by recording the name of the Petitioner as a tenant (occupant) in terms of the application filed by the Petitioner and the said Watandar. It is relevant to note that the said watandar. It is relevant to note that the said Watandar died on June 4, 1978. After the death of the original Watandar, his son (Respondent No. 3), being the legal heir, claimed to have succeeded to the said property by virtue of probate issued in his favour. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 made an application to the concerned authority for recording his name in the