1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner - Housing Society has challenged the order dated 7.10.1995, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur granting permission to Tahsildar, Nagpur for review as well as order dated 12.10.1995, passed by the Tahsildar cancelling the mutation entry Nos.78, 79 and 80 dated 23.1.1990 in respect of the land purchased by the petitioner . Housing Society.

FACTS :

2. The petitioner . Housing Society purchased land admeasuring 7.96 hectares by three separate registered sale-deeds dated 23.6.1989 from survey No.23/1 of village Wadi from its owner M/s. Canara Workshop Limited. After purchase thereof the petitioner. Society reported the said transfer to respondent No.3 Tahsildar Nagpur (Rural) and requested for taking necessary mutation entries. Accordingly, the Tahsildar made an order on 23.1.1990 and entry into record of rights was made showing the petitioner - Society as owner of the said land. The petitioner. Society, thereafter, drew lay outs for 330 plots and after approval of the Grampanchayat allotted the plots to its members for construction of houses and the members also constructed their houses after getting their building plans approved. It appears that somewhere in October, 1995 new Tahsildar, namely Shri Dilip Pandharinath Talmale came on transfer as Tahsildar, Nagpur (Rural) and made a reference to S.D.O., Nagpur, seeking review of the said mutation entries i.e. 78, 79 and 80 and that proposal was received on 6.10.1995 by S.D.O., Nagpur and on 7.10.1995, the S.D.O. granted permission for review. It then appears that on 12.10.1995, Tahsildar, Nagpur (Rural) cancelled the mutation entries No. 78, 79 and 80 and directed the concerned Talathi to report compliance accordingly.

ARGUMENTS :

3. Shri Hedaoo, learned Counsel for the petitioner . Society contended that the new Tahsildar, who came on transfer suddenly on 6.10.1995 made a reference to S.D.O., Nagpur for grant of permission to review the mutation entries No. 78, 79 and 80 without assigning any reason in his reference letter. The S.D.O. immediately on the next day without recording any reason granted permission which is illegal. He then submitted that thereafter Tahsildar, Nagpur (Rural) passed an order dated 12.10.1995 cancelling the entries without even issuing a simple notice to the petitioner Society. The petitione. Society was thus shocked to know about such cancellation. Referring to various provisions under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 he submitted that the impugned orders are totally illegal and as such liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, Shri Jaiswal, learned A.G.P. for the respondents drew my attention to the return that is filed in the writ petition and submitted that though the impugned orders do not contain any reason, the same can be justified inasmuch as no procedure as required by Section 150 (2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 was followed. He submitted that the petitioner . Society was given a notice to remain present before Tahsildar, Nagpur (Rural) on 4.10.1995 i.e. before making the order dated 12.10.1995 but nobody remained present for petitioner. Society and, therefore, the order was passed cancelling the mutation entries. Shri Jaiswal, learned A.G.P., however, could not point out the copies of the notice or acknowledgment of service of the notice to appear on 4.10.1995 though in the return there is a mention that the same was at Annexure - R-1. But no such annexure is annexed with the return. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

CONSIDERATION :

5. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner as well as A.G.P. for respondents before me and having gone through the entire writ petition as well as impugned orders, it would be appropriate to quote Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

258. (1) The State Government and every revenue of survey officer may either on its or his own motion