The mutation of self-acquired property requires a relinquishment deed and cannot be authorized by revenue authorities without jurisdiction, particularly when delay in appeal is not condoned.

JUDGMENT :

[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. The Petitioner, by way of this Writ petition, has challenged order dated 23^rd October, 2018 passed by State Minister for Revenue and Forest in Second RTS Revision No. 3318/1019 Pra. Kra.198/Javak-6 and is also seeking direction that judgment and order dated 26^th December, 2016 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in RTS Revision (Appeal) No. 604 of 2012 along with order dated 10^th December, 2012 passed by Additional Collector, Ahmednagar in Second RTS Appeal No. 73 of 2012 be quashed and set aside. By way of amendment, the Petitioner is also seeking direction that, the Gift Deed dated 18^th January, 2024 executed by Respondent No. 6 in favour of Respondent No.7 be declared as not binding on the Petitioner and quash and set aside Mutation Entry No. 4119 effected on the basis of Gift Deed and consequential entries in 7/12 extract in respect of land bearing Gut No. 31 situated at Mauje Kokangaon, Taluka – Shrigonda, District – Ahmednagar.

3. Contention of the Petitioner is that, he is son of Respondents No. 6 and 7, namely Sakhubai Kondiba Misal and Kondiba Babu Misal. Property bearing Gut No. 37 admeasuring 2 Hectare 56 Are, situated at Mauje Kokangaon, Taluka – Shrigonda, District – Ahmednagar is the ancestral property belonging to Petitioner and Respondent No. 7. Whereas, property bearing Gut No. 31 ad measuring 2 Hectare 42 Are, has been purchased by the Petitioner out of individual income while doing labour work and executing contract for digging wells. He has purchased land in Gut No. 31 to the extent of 2 Hectare 42 Are, by registered sale deed executed on 26^th April, 1989. It is his contention that due to certain discord in the family, Respondents No.6 and 7 advised him that, since his wife has left him and she may claim maintenance and share in his property, in view of that he should transfer property of his share in favour of Respondents No. 6 and 7. Therefore, in order to avoid the responsibility of paying maintenance and parting with share of his property to his wife, Petitioner made an application on 13^th May, 2000 under section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (to be referred as “MLR Code”) thereby requesting to transfer land from Gut No. 37 to the extent of 2 Hectare 56 Are in the name of his father – Respondent No.7, thereby relinquishing his right in the ancestral property. In the same application, the Petitioner has also requested to transfer land Ad measuring 64 Are + 48 Are from Gut No. 31 in favour of his mother – Respondent No. 6. It is his contention that though said application was in fact not maintainable under section 85 of the MLR Code, since the section can be invoked only for effecting partition between co-holders and it does not empower revenue authorities to make changes in revenue record on the basis of relinquishment of rights. Pursuant to the application made by the Petitioner, Tahsildar Shrigonda, by order dated 24th July, 2000 effected partition amongst co-holders and recorded name of Respondent No.7 in respect of property bearing Gut No. 37, to the extent of 2 Hectare 56 Are. It is further contended that though property in Gut No. 31 to the extent of 2 Hectare 42 Are is his self acquired property and the self acquired property cannot be transferred in favour of any family member, without supporting deed or instrument, or order of Court is beyond the scope of section 85 of the MLR Code. Name of his mother has been entered in revenue record in respect of Gut No. 31, to the extent of 64 Are + 48 Are. Based on the order dated 24^th July, 2000, passed by the Tahsildar, Mutation Entry No. 1507 was effected, thereby mutating names of Respondents No.6 and 7 in the respective lands.

4. It is further contended by Shri. Gawali, learned Advocate for the Petitioner that though the transfer of lands was effected only for convenience between