The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Court of Wards to adjudicate disputes over property ownership and mutation entries.

JUDGMENT

A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. - The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the notice dtd. 2/7/2020 issued by the in-charge Officer, Court of Wards, Nagpur. By the said notice, the predecessors of the petitioner - Company have been called upon to attend the hearing of the proceedings that was to be conducted by the Collector/ Commissioner of the Court of Wards. In the said notice, it was stated that there was an objection raised to the revenue record maintained with regard to Khasra No. 128/1, Mouza - Somalwada and in that context, the stand of the said vendors was sought.

2. The petitioner is a Company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). According to the Company, on 22/12/2008, it purchased various lands including land bearing Khasra No. 128/1, Mouza - Somalwada admeasuring 1 hectare 45 ares. Since then it is in possession and occupation of the Company. On 13/7/2018, respondent No.2 herein in his capacity as power of attorney holder for respondent Nos. 3 to 9 moved an application before the Tahsildar stating therein that the mutation entries in 7/12 extract had been incorrectly recorded. It was stated that respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were the owners of the said land and despite that names of about 21 other persons had been mentioned. The power of attorney holder submitted that by invoking the provisions of Sec. 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short "the Code of 1966"), permission be obtained from the Sub-Divisional Officer and necessary corrections be made in the revenue record. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar on 21/1/2019 issued a communication to the Manager, Court of Wards, Nagpur and brought to his notice the application moved by the power of attorney holder and requested necessary guidance in the matter. The application dtd. 13/7/2018 was forwarded to the Manager, Court of Wards, Nagpur. It is thereafter that on 2/7/2020 the aforesaid notice came to be issued by the Presiding Officer, Court of Wards, Nagpur to the predecessors of the Company. On being informed of the same, the petitioner initially filed an application for dismissal of the said proceedings on 7/8/2020 stating therein that the power of attorney holder had no locus whatsoever to move the application dtd. 13/7/2018. It is thereafter that the Company has filed the present Writ Petition on 12/8/2020.

3. Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the Company submitted that the Court of Wards had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the application dtd. 13/7/2018 that had been moved by the power of attorney holder. When the said application was moved before the Tahsildar, he had forwarded the same to the Manager, Court of Wards, Nagpur on 21/1/2019. Correction in revenue records was a matter to be considered by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Code of 1966 and the said dispute did not fall within the purview of the Court of Wards. Inviting attention to various provisions of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899 (for short "the Act of 1899"), it was submitted that there was no power of adjudication conferred on the Court of Wards especially the manner of dispute as sought to be raised by the power of attorney holder. He invited attention to the Notification dtd. 12/2/1925 by which the Court of Wards was empowered to assume superintendence of various properties of the Bhonsle family. It was urged that the property in question being Khasra No. 128/1 was not mentioned in the Schedule of Properties under the said Notification. For that reason, it could not be said that the subject property fell within the purview of the Court of Wards. Under Sec. 21 of the Act of 1899, the Court of Wards could exercise powers only with regard to the properties in which there was interest created and not otherwise. If respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were claiming title to the property in question, the remedy for the same was before the Civil Court and not before the Court of Wards. In absence of any j