SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Anandrao Dinkar Pachundkar - Appellant 
Versus 
Hon’ble Minister for Revenue & Forest Department - Respondents  
Writ Petition No. 13952 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 200 of 2024
Decided on : 19-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner in WP/13952/2023.
Mr. P.S. Dani, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Dilip Bodake a/w Mr. S.T. Bhosale, for Petitioner in WP/200/2024.
Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Savita
Prabhune, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-State in WP/13952/2023.
Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-State in WP/200/2024.
Mr. Anil Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Manish Kelkar for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in both the Petitions.

The court upheld the dismissal of petitions due to dubious entries in Grampanchayat records, emphasizing the need for civil suits to establish title rather than relying on administrative decisions.

Headnote:

(A) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 20(2) and Section 59 - Petitioner challenged orders dismissing his revision applications regarding inclusion of land in city survey and correction of revenue records - The Minister dismissed the revision and directed eviction of Petitioner from the land, setting aside prior orders favoring him. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is corrective, not appellate, focusing on grave dereliction or abuse of authority - The court declined to interfere in light of prima facie interpolations in Grampanchayat records. (Paras 29-36)

(C) Evidence - Entries in Grampanchayat Registers from 1960-61 were found dubious; the Petitioner’s claims were based on these questionable records, raising issues of authenticity and ownership. (Paras 22-28)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner sought to include lands in city survey records, claiming ownership based on historical family records. His appeals were dismissed at various administrative levels, culminating in a Ministerial order that favored the Grampanchayat and set aside earlier favorable decisions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Minister's order was justified given the dubious nature of the records relied upon by the Petitioner and did not warrant intervention.

Issues: The primary issues were the authenticity of the Grampanchayat records and whether the Minister's decision was appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existence of gross interpolations in the Grampanchayat records warranted denial of the Petitioner’s claims and that the proper remedy was a civil suit for title, not administrative relief.

Result: Both Petitions are dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

A. The Challenge

1) These two Petitions are filed by the Petitioner challenging the orders dated 17 October 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue) dismissing the Revision Applications filed by him. Petitioner had initiated proceedings in the form of appeals before the District Superintendent of Land Records essentially seeking inclusion of the lands bearing Grampanchayat old Milkat No. 34A(new No.622/1) and 35(new No.622/2) in the city survey by conducting a fresh survey enquiry under the provisions of Section 20(2) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) and to record his name in the revenue records by carrying out necessary corrections in city survey records and the map. The said proceedings initiated by the Petitioner have ultimately been rejected by virtue of impugned orders dated 17 October 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Minister.

2) In respect of house property bearing Grampanchayat Old Milkat No.35 (revised No.622/2) the Petitioner has lost throughout the District Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR), Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR) and Hon’ble Minister and the orders passed in those proceedings are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.200 of 2024.

3) So far as land bearing Grampanchayat Old Milkat No.34A (revised No. 622/1) is concerned, the Petitioner initially succeeded before the DSLR, who passed order dated 31 July 2013 directing the Deputy Superintendent Land Records, Shirur to assign city survey number to the said land and to record name of holder accordingly. The Deputy Superintendent accordingly passed order dated 27 September 2013 assigning city survey number to the said land admeasuring 4900 sq.mtrs. and mutating name of Petitioner therefor. Grampanchayat challenged order dated 27 September 2013 passed by the Deputy Superintendent before the DSLR, who rejected the appeal of the Grampanchayat by order dated 23 December 2019. The Grampanchayat filed second appeal before the DDLR and partly succeeded before him in setting aside order dated 23 December 2019 and the DDLR remanded the proceedings to DSLR for decision of the appeal on merits. Petitioner got aggrieved by order passed by the DDLR on 29 October 2021 and filed revision before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister, while dismissing Petitioner’s revision, has set aside the order of the DDLR dated 29 October 2021 as well as orders of DSLR dated 31 July 2013 and 23 December 2019. Hon’ble Minister has directed deletion of name of Petitioner from revenue records relating to the said land bearing Grampanchayat Old Milkat No.34A (revised No.622/1) and has further directed Tehsildar to remove Petitioner from said land under the provisions of Section 59 of the Code. Said order passed by the Minister on 17 October 2023 relating to Grampanchayat Old Milkat No.34A (revised No.622/1) is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.13952 of 2023.

4) Since both the Petitions are filed by the same Petitioner for same purpose, the same are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

B. Factual Matrix

5) A very brief factual background for better understanding of issue at hand would be necessary. It is Petitioner’s case that his great great grandfather– Sakharam Malhari Pachundkar died leaving behind two sons-Ganpati and Baban. Petitioner is from the branch of Ganpati, who had son by name Dinkar and Petitioner is the son of Dinkar. According to the Petitioner, a partition was effected between Ganpati and Baban on 2 November 1946, under which the land bearing Survey No.1/1 came to be allotted to the share of Ganpati and partition was effected in the revenue records through Mutation Entry No.1866. On 26 December 1969, Phalani Bara scheme Form No.12 was implemented in village-Ranjangaon Ganpati, in which land bearing Old Survey No.1/1 admeasuring 9 acres 34 guntha plus 4 guntha (total 9 acre 38 guntha) was recorded in the name of Dinkar Ganpati Pachundkar vide Mutation Entry No.4338.

6) According to Petitioner in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top