JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the Tahsildar, Mulshi (Poud), Dist. Pune in HNO/ 257/SAR/05/2011 dated 10th December, 2021 directing rectification of mutation entry No. 8744 to the extent of deleting the survey No. 233/2A/1 from the preview of the said mutation.

3. Though the litigation has a checkered history with multiple rounds of litigation before the revenue authorities and the Civil Courts and this round in effect being the third round of substantive proceedings before this Court yet the background facts necessary for the determination of this petition can be stated as under:

3.1 Agricultural land bearing survey No. 233 admeasuring 22 Acre and 23 R situated at Hinjewadi, Tal. Mulshi, District Pune was held by the More family. Ganpat Jambhulkar, the predecessor in title of the petitioners, claimed to have purchased an area admeasuring 11 Acre and 11.50 Gunthas out of the said land bearing survey No. 233 from one Mr. Ganpat More under a registered Sale Deed dated 20th April, 1960. M. Entry No.1568 came to be certified carving out survey Nos. 233/1 and 233/2 and mutating the names of Ganpat Jambhulkar to survey No.233/1 and name of Bhiva More to survey No. 233/2, each admeasuring 11 Acre and 11.5 R.

3.2 Asserting that, without notice to the predecessor in title of the petitioners, vide mutation entry No. 1802, the area of the survey No. 233/1 (the subject land) came to be reduced to 7 Acres and 21 R from 11 Acres and 11.5 R. The petitioners preferred Revision Application No. PTI/WS/318/2001 before the Collector, Pune. By a judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2002, the Additional Collector was persuaded to allow the revision thereby setting aside the mutation entry No. 1802 and restoring mutation entry 1568, primarily on the ground that in the intervening period the Civil Courts had adjudicated the dispute and returned a finding that the Sale Deed dated 20th April, 1960 executed in favour of the predecessor in title of the petitioners was not fabricated and void.

3.3 The said adjudication was made in Regular Civil Suit No. 238 of 2000 instituted by Baban More and Pandurang More, the successors in interest of Bhiva More, in whose name survey No. 233/2 had been mutated under mutation entry No. 1568. Baban and Pandurang More approached the Civil Court with a case that they were the absolute owners and in exclusive possession of the entire survey No. 233 admeasuring 22 Acre and 23 Gunthas. The alleged vendors of Ganpat Jambhulkar had no concern with More family. The petitioners-defendants in the said suit falsely claimed to have acquired ownership over the subject land on the basis of fabricated and false Sale Deed dated 20th April, 1960. Thus they prayed for a declaration that the said Sale Deed was void and consequential relief of injunction.

3.4 By a judgment and order dated 31st March, 2021 the said suit came to be dismissed. An appeal preferred thereagainst by Baban More and Pandurang More, being Civil Appeal No. 459 of 2001, also came to be dismissed by the learned IIIrd Extra Joint District Judge by a judgment and order dated 11th October, 2004.

3.5 An endevour was made to assail the said decree in a Second Appeal before this Court. Since there was delay, an application for condonation of delay bearing Civil Application No. 799 of 2006 in Second Appeal (St.) No. 9327 of 2006 was filed. However, the said application came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16th February, 2008.

3.6 In the intervening period, Baban and Pandurang More had assailed the order passed by the Additional Collector in Revision Application No. PTI/WS/318/2001 setting aside mutation entry No. 1802 and restoring mutation entry No. 1568.

3.7 In Revision Application No. PTI/WS/318/2001 by a judgment and order dated 13th June, 2005 the Addl. Commissioner, Pune allowed the revisio