The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-necessity of registration for effecting mutation entries based on partition deeds in the context of undivided Hindu family property.

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the respective sides.

3. Two interesting factors emerge in this petition. Firstly, that respondent No. 4, who has nothing to do with the property mentioned in the 7/12 extract, claims a right to be heard before carrying out mutation entries with regard to the partition and allotment of portions of the land interse the family members of an erstwhile undivided Hindu family. Secondly, respondent No. 2/Additional Collector, Beed has set aside the mutation entry No. 735 in opposition to the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2003 (3) Mh. L.J. 1039, on the basis of which the Director General of Registration and Stamps, State of Maharashtra has issued guidelines dated 10.05.2006 which have also been violated by respondent No. 2.

4. There is no dispute that respondent No. 4 is not in any way related to the petitioners and has no concern of any nature whatsoever with land admeasuring 3 Hectres 7-R situated in Gat No. 168 at village Kanhapur, Tal. Wadwani, District Beed. The controversy at issue has its roots in petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 4 having applied for allotment of a petrol pump and for which purpose, the petitioner No. 2 had submitted the mutation entry No. 735 to indicate that he has a title and interest in a portion of land which he desires to utilize for the purposes of establishing the petrol pump. Respondent No. 4, in order to scuttle the chances of petitioner No. 1 in getting allotment of the petrol pump, has raised a dispute before respondent No. 3. Record reveals that respondent No. 3, while passing the order dated 05.11.2012, has heard respondent No. 4.

5. The petitioners contend that the land at issue was divided amongst themselves and was thus partitioned. The partition deed was reduced into writing on Rs. 100/- non-judicial stamp paper. Based on the said partition deed, which is admittedly not registered, the parties moved for seeking a mutation entry in terms of such allotment of shares amongst the family members which comprise of the petitioner No. 1 father and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 sons. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Others vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar, 2003 (3) Bom. C.R. 45 and considering the partition deed as a best piece of evidence, the competent revenue authority proceeded to carry out the mutation entry No. 735.

6. Respondent No. 4 has interjected in the matter and moved the higher authority on the ground that the partition deed was not registered and hence it has no probative value. On a grievance raised by respondent No. 4, the Additional Collector, by order dated 31.08.2012, apparently lost sight of the fact that respondent No. 4 had no locus to question the mutation entry when all shareholders of the land at issue were before the revenue authority and there was no dispute interse. Respondent No. 2 has interfered with the mutation entry on the ground that the partition deed was not registered and hence it had no probative value.

7. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Deshpande case (supra), by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Digambar Adhar Patil vs. Devram Girdhar Patil, AIR 1995 SC 1728, has specifically observed in paragraph Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as under:

“2. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner, his brother and father were jointly owning the property. The father of the petitioner, who was Karta of the joint Hindu family, partitioned the property on 1.4.1995. The partition was oral, which was reduced to writing on 12.6.1996. The petitioner got property of Mouza Anjankhed. The petitioner moved an application to the Talathi to take mutation entry of Gat No. 2 in his name as p