( 1 ) THIS is a second round of litigation. Respondent no. 1 lost his case before the Civil Court at all levels including this Court and in spite of clear findings of this Court the petitioners were subjected to harass- ment by summary proceedings in respect of mutation of entry in the records of rights on account of an application made by respondent no. 2 for mutating his name as the owner of certain pieces of land under Karami Lekh no. 56 alleged to have been executed by the Begam Saheba of erstwhile Jainabad State in his favour.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS nos. 1 and 2 had purchased land hearing survey no. 241 situated in the Sim of Jainabad village by a registered sale-deed dated 18-5-1955 from the father of respondent no. 1. Similarly petitioner no. 3 also purchased survey no. 37 situated in the same village from the father of respondent no. 1 be a registered sale-deed dated 18-1-1955.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT no. 1 raised a dispute and threatened petitioners nos. 1 and 2 and under the apprehension of dispossession they filed a suet being Civil Suit no. 95 of 1960 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Junior Divi- sion Bajana against respondent no. 1 for a permanent injunction restraining him from disturbing the possession of the petitioners. As a counter-blast respondent no. 1 also filed a suit being Civil Suit no. 120 of 1960. against petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in that very Court for possession on the ground that the said fields were mortgaged by him to petitioners nos. 1 and 2. The suit of petitioners nos. 1 and 2 was decreed and the suit of respondent no. 1 was dis- missed. Appeals filed by respondent no. 1 against the decision in both the aforesaid suits in the District Court were also dis-missed on 24-11-1961. Second appeals being Second Appeals nos. 171 and 172 of 1963. filed in this Court by respondent no. 1 against the said decision of the District Court were also dis- missed on 6-4-1970 copy of which is produced at Annexure A to the petition.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT no. 1 having lost his case based upon the Karami Lekh of 1948 started new proceedings by making an application to the Revenue Authorities for mutation of his name as an owner in respect of survey nos. 241 and 37 of village Jainabad on the basis of said Karami Lekh no. 56 dated 29 which was totally a misconceived proceeding. I am told at the Bar by Mr. J. R. Nanavati learned Advocate for the Petitioners that such proceed- ings are being taken by the parties from time to time with a view to harass the other side and defeat the rights of a rightful party to be settled by the Civil Court and this Court should clear this position so that poor cultivators like the petitioners may not be subjected to such type of harassments.

( 5 ) IN order to decide this issue it is necessary to consider the schema of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Chapter X-A of the Code contains the provisions regarding the Record of Rights and under the provisions of sec. 135-B of the Code a record of rights is required to be maintained in every village and such record shall contain the material particulars regarding the names of all persons other than tenants who are holders occupants owners or mortgagees of the land or assignees of the tent or revenue thereof; the nature and extent of the respective interests of such persons and conditions or liabilities if any attached thereto the rent or revenue if any payable be or any of such persons; and such other particulars as the State Government may prescribe by rules made in this behalf.

( 6 ) SEC. 135-C of the Code provides that any person who acquires by succession survivorship inheritance partition purchase mortgage gift. lease or otherwise any right as holder occupant owner mortgagee landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof shall have to report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the village accountant within three months from the date of such acquisition