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
(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









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.
The court ruled that claims based on dubious entries in Grampanchayat Registers cannot be upheld, emphasizing the need for a civil suit to establish title rather than relying on revenue proceedings.
it was impermissible to Collector to have taken the entries nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision after a period of almost close to five years. Therefore, the exercise of power by the Collector in t....
The finality of judgments and decrees, and the ineffectiveness of attempts to challenge them, was a central legal principle established in the judgment.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.
Entries in revenue records made fraudulently lack legal validity, and administrative authorities must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.