The Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to revoke ownership certificates under Section 38(E) after a significant lapse of time unless fraud is clearly and specifically proven.

JUDGMENT :

Arun R. Pedneker, J.

1. Heard. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. By the present petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the Tahasildar, Beed in proceeding no.2025/KUL/KAVI4012, thereby cancelling the entries in the mutation record and all other government offices in respect of land survey no.19 bearing Gut No.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and survey no.20 having Gut No.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, situated at Mouje Talegaon, Distirct Beed, by cancelling the certificate dated 01.09.1960 issued under Section 38(E) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (for brevity “the 1950 Act”) .

3. The case in brief of the petitioners is that in a proceeding initiated under Section 38(E) of the 1950 Act, name of Ganpati Kundlik Kurule and Abaji Ramji Jadhav were recorded in the abstract of protected tenancies part one Namuna No.5 on 15.09.1957 in respect of land survey no.19, admeasuring 19 Acres 22 Are and survey no.20, admeasuring 21 Acres 04 Are. The occupancy price was deposited by the tenant namely Ganpati Kundlik Kurule and Abaji Ramji Jadhav on 03.05.1966. Ganpati Kundlik Kurule died on 08.02.1993 leaving behind him two sons namely Laxman Ganpati Kurule and Devidas Ganpati Kurule and vide mutation entry no.187 the names of legal heris of Ganpati Kundlik Kurule came to be recorded on 04.12.1995. It is submitted that Abaji Ramji Jadhav died leaving behind him two sons namely Uttamrao Jadhav and Mohan Jadhav. One of the legal heir of Abaji Ramji Jadhav namely Uttamrao died on 20.10.2005 and vide mutation no.1669 dated 27.02.2006 the legal heirs of Uttamrao Jadhav namely Padminibai Uttamrao Jadhav, Bhaskar Uttamrao Jadhav, Madhukar Uttamrao Jadhav, Sadashiv Uttamrao Jadhav, Mahadev Uttamrao Jadhav, Shahadeo Uttamrao Jadhav, Suresh Uttamrao Jadhav and Gawlanbai Sheshrao Baglane came to be recorded as legal heirs of deceased Uttamrao Jadhav. As per mutation entries the names in 7/12 extract of the petitioners were recorded in the above gut numbers.

4. It is submitted that the petitioners received notice from the Tahsildar, Beed. From the notice the petitioners came to know that Pooja Shashikant Deshbhratar, R/o. Sarda nagri, Beed has filed an application before the Tahsildar, Beed with the prayer to convert the land survey no.19 and 20 from class 1 to class 2 and the petitioners received notice in respect of proceeding filed by Pooja in the capacity of General Power of Attorney holder of Shaikh Sabiya Anjum Shakil, Respondent No.2.

5. The Respondent no.2 in the application has contended that the certificate issued under Section 38(E) of the 1950 Act granted on 01.09.1960 in favour of the Petitioners be declared as fraudulently obtained and cancelled. The petitioners objected to the proceeding as without jurisdiction. Reply was filed by the petitioners on 19.08.2025 along with an application questioning the maintainability of the application filed by the Respondent No.2. The Tahsildar notwithstanding the objection of jurisdiction raised decided the matter on merits and the certificate issued under Section 38(E) of the 1950 Act was quashed and the Tahsildar directed all concerned to enter the name of the owners namely Gulabbi Kishan Prasad by deleting all the entries of the petitioners.

6. The petitioners challenge the impugned order in the present writ petition as being passed without jurisdiction and that the deemed ownership certificate issued 65 years back has been quashed by the Tahsildar.

7. It is submitted that the petitioners also filed an appeal under erroneous advice. But, before me, statement is made that they are withdrawing the appeal as the writ petition is the remedy and, accordingly, they have filed the purshis to withdraw the appeal before the appellate authority and are pursuing the present writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following citations:

“1. 2025 SCC Online Bom 2833

2.