High Court Refuses to Interfere in Revenue Matters Under Article 227 Due to Doubts on Document Authenticity: Bombay High Court - 2025-03-21

Bombay High Court Upholds Minister's Order in Land Dispute , Citing Doubts Over Document Authenticity

Mumbai, March 19, 2025 – The Bombay High Court, in a judgment delivered on March 19, 2025, dismissed two writ petitions filed by Anandrao Dinkar Pachundkar , challenging orders passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue) regarding land record corrections in Ranjangaon Ganpati , Pune. Justice Sandeep V.Marne presided over the case, ultimately refusing to exercise the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Case Overview: Battle for Land Records

The petitioner, Anandrao Pachundkar , sought inclusion of lands bearing Grampanchayat Old Milkat Nos. 34A and 35 into the city survey records and to have his name registered as the landholder. He initiated proceedings before the District Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR), claiming ancestral rights based on Grampanchayat property registers dating back to 1960-61. These claims were contested by the Grampanchayat of Ranjangaon Ganpati and the State Government.

Arguments and Contentions

Petitioner's Argument: Mr. G.S. Godbole and Mr. P.S. Dani, senior advocates representing the petitioner, argued that the Minister erred in reversing the initial order by the DSLR in favor of the petitioner for Milkat No. 34A. They contended that the Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR) had only remanded the matter back to DSLR, and the Minister overstepped by setting aside orders and directing eviction without a proper challenge to the initial DSLR order assigning a city survey number to Milkat No. 34A. They relied on Grampanchayat records and a surveyor's report to support the claim that the land was missed during the original city survey.

Respondents' Argument: Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni and Mr. Anil Y. Sakhare, senior advocates for the State and Grampanchayat respectively, vehemently opposed the petitions. They argued that the land belonged to the State Government and that the petitioner was attempting to illegally seize government property. A key point raised was the allegation of "systematic fraud" involving interpolation in Grampanchayat registers. They presented original registers to the court, highlighting erasures, water damage, and inconsistencies, especially in entries bearing the petitioner's name. They argued the DSLR lacked jurisdiction under Section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, as only the Collector could initiate such inquiries for government land.

Court's Reasoning: Doubts and Discretion

Justice Marne , after examining the evidence, particularly the Grampanchayat registers from 1960-61 and 2009-12, expressed "prima facie" doubts about their authenticity. The judgment highlighted visible signs of tampering, including erasures, different ink usage, and pasting of pages. The court also noted the implausibility of a minor, aged 12 in 1960-61, being recorded as a property owner in the register while his father and grandfather were alive.

The judgment emphasized the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 227. Citing Garment Craft V/s. Prakash Chand Goel, [(2022) 4 SCC 181] , the court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error but to rectify "grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse." Referring to State of Bombay Vs. Morarji Cooverji, [1958 Bom Law Reporter Vol LXI 318] , the court stressed that a petitioner seeking writ relief must demonstrate that "justice lies on his side."

Pivotal Excerpt :

> "Prima facie, the entries in the concerned Register pertaining to the year 1960-61 appear to be highly doubtful...Prima facie there appears to be gross interpolations in respect of both the Grampanchayat Registers pertaining to the years 1960-61 and 2009-10 to 2012-13. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and after noticing prima facie case of interpolations in the Grampanchayat Registers coupled with the fact that Petitioner’s daughter-in-law functioned as Sarpanch of the village, this Court would be loathe in exercising the jurisdiction in Petitioner’s favour particularly when the litigation relates to mere revenue entries made for fiscal purposes."

Decision and Implications

The Bombay High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Revenue Minister's order. The court clarified that its decision does not extinguish the petitioner’s claim to the land. Anandrao Pachundkar is at liberty to file a civil suit to establish his title, where the authenticity of the Grampanchayat records and his claims can be thoroughly examined under evidentiary standards.

The judgment underscores the High Court's reluctance to intervene in revenue matters under Article 227 when there are serious questions about the veracity of the evidence presented, especially when a full civil trial can determine the underlying property rights. The case serves as a reminder that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for civil proceedings, particularly in disputes involving contested facts and potential document fraud.