A writ petition challenging a revisional order that quashed a mutation entry in the petitioner's name, even though she had no prayer for that specific entry, and such entry was not previously challenged.
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order quashed and set aside. Matter remanded to revisional authority for fresh consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp5730.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.5730 OF 2012
Hausabai Fakira Kapkar... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
Babubai Nivrutti Ranmale
and ors. .. RESPONDENTS.
Shri P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri R.L. Kute, Advocate h/f
Shri V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for R.Nos.1 and 2.
Shri D.R. Kale, AGP for R.No.7.
R.Nos.3 to 6 served.
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE,J.
18th April, 2013.
PER COURT:
1.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner
and learned Counsel for respondents. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the revisional authority has travelled
beyond the averments and prayers in the
application and even cancelled Mutation Entry
wp5730.12
2
No.1600 which was in the name of the
petitioner. In fact, it was never subject
matter of the proceedings before the
revisional authority. Therefore, he submits
that such order cannot sustain.
2.On the other hand, learned Counsel for
contesting respondents 1 and 2 tried to
justify the said order saying that in
revision, it is always open for the revisional
authority to mould the relief and grant
appropriate relief.
3.Upon hearing the submissions of the
learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of
the operative part of the impugned order, it
is clear that the revisional authority has
travelled beyond the averments and prayers in
the application and cancelled Mutation Entry
No.1600 in the name of the petitioner. There
was no prayer by the revision applicant in
respect of Mutation Entry No.1600.
wp5730.12
3
In fact the Tahsildar, the first appellate
authority and also the second appellate
authority have concurrently held in favour of
the petitioner in respect of cancellation
Mutation Entry No.1613, and if the revisional
authority wants to deal with the concurrent
findings in respect of Mutation Entry No.
1613,the revisional authority has to record
cogent reasons for the same and should not
have travelled beyond the pleadings and
prayers in the application, since in revision
application prayer was only in respect of M.E.
No.1613 and not about M.E. No.1600.
Therefore, this writ petition deserves
consideration. TheAwal Karkoon, Tahsil
Office, Sangamner by order dated 16.5.2006 has
sanctioned Mutation Entry No.1600 in favour of
the petitioner, in spite of contest by the
respondents herein. Same was not under
challenge before the Additional Commissioner
in Revision. The said order attained finality.
The respondents, if aggrieved, could have
wp5730.12
4
challenged the same by filing separate appeal.
4.At this stage, the learned Counsel for the
contesting respondents 1 and 2, on
instructions, makes a statement that instead
of keeping this writ petition pending before
this Court, the impugned order may be set
aside and the matter may be remanded back to
the revisional authority for consideration
afresh.
5.In the light of above, impugned order
dated 24.5.2012 passed by the respondent No.7
the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik
Division, Nashik in R.T.S. Revision No.
119/2010 is quashed and set aside, and R.T.S.
Revision No.119/2010 is restored to its
original file. The revisional authority to
hear the parties and pass appropriate orders
on the merits of the revision, afresh.
Petition stands disposed of.
PLK/*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revisional authority can quash a mutation entry in the name of the petitioner when such entry was not part of the revision application and no prayer was made in respect of it.
Whether the revisional authority is justified in cancelling Mutation Entry No.1600 despite the petitioner having obtained a sanction for it in a separate, non-challenged order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hausabai Fakira Kapkar
Babubai Nivrutti Ranmale
S. S. Shinde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court