The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the sale certificate in determining the validity of mutation entries and the nature of the suit land, along with the requirement to exercise revisional power within a reasonable time.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition challenges the order dated 13-02-2019 passed by respondent No.1 in R.T.S. No.3218/Pr.Kr.165/J-6A.

3. Facts in brief leading to this petition are as follows:-Deceased Manikrao Udaysingh Patil was tenant of suit land old Survey No.74 and current Gat No.148 owned by Late. Dwarkabai Pandharinath Patil. Mutation Entry No.624 was sanctioned in the year 1955, thereby recording deceased Manikrao as tenant of the suit land. Upon death of Manikrao on 23-03-1989 the names of the petitioners and other legal heirs of Manikrao were entered in the revenue record and the petitioner No.1 was shown as Karta of Joint Hindu Family vide Mutation Entry No.218. Dwarkabai Pandharinath Patil expired on 22-02-1993 and she had only daughter namely Vijayabai Bhargav Desai whose name was entered in the mutation register vide M.E. No.323. Vijayabai, daughter of Late Dwarkabai executed sale certificate u/S. 32(M) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Act, 1948) in favour of the petitioner Sahebrao Manikrao Patil on 10-07-1997.

4. Respondent No.6 challenged M.E. No.218 before respondent No.2, which was allowed and M.E. No.218 was cancelled. The name of respondent No.6 was directed to be entered in the revenue record of the suit land.

5. The petitioners challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 before the Additional Collector, Jalgaon, who allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that M.E. No.218 was certified in the year 1989 and after 23 years revision application was filed by respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon, before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik. Respondent No.6, thereafter, approached the Honble Minister by filing proceeding u/S.257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which was allowed. This order is impugned in the present petition.

6. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, learned advocate for respondent No.6 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 State.

7. The learned advocate for petitioners assailed the impugned order submitting that the Honble Minister failed to consider inordinate delay of 23 years in filing proceedings, so also, the sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioners. The impugned order is passed by ignoring M.E. Nos. 326, 327 and 686. He further submitted that respondent No.6 has already preferred Regular Civil Suit No.132/2017 for partition and separate possession of the suit land, and other properties. (By relying on the affidavit filed by the real brother of respondent No.6) By pointing out admission of respondent No.6 in paragraph 4 of the revision memo filed before the Honble Minister he submitted that this admission is also ignored by the Honble Minister at the time of passing the impugned order. According to him, the application filed by respondent No.6 was hopelessly time barred and ought to have rejected at the threshold. In support of his submissions he relied in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, reported in 2009 (9) SCC 352.

He further submitted that on 31-07-2020 this Court granted status quo in the present petition. On the same day respondent No.6 was successful in getting M.E. No.1151 sanctioned in his favour. The said mutation entry mentions that notice was issued on the same day, approval was granted and the entry was also certified on the same day i.e. on 31-07-2020. This was, in spite of the fact that the petitioner had intimated revenue authorities that he is challenging the order passed by the Honble Minister before this Court. He, therefore, submitted the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. The learned advocate for respondent No.6 submitted that the suit land is ancestral property. Out of the four ancestral properties three properties were parti