The High Court in writ petition 16-wp-5226-19 addressed a challenge to an order refusing the widow of Bhimrao Surwase to correct a mutation entry excluding her husband's name. The Court found no infirmity in the order under Article 227 and dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
16-wp-5226-19
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5226 OF 2019
Indumati Bhimrao Surwase and Ors...Petitioners
Vs.
Arjun Krishna Surwase and Ors...Respondents
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1A to 1E.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 8 / State.
Ms. Ujwala Sawant i/b. Rekha Musale, Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2020
P.C.
.The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the
Hon’ble Minister thereby confirming the order passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, refusing to correct
the mutation entry No.1670 in respect of land survey No.147/2 of
Village Chincholikati, District Solapur.
2.According to the petitioner, the land was recorded in the name
of three brothers namely Arjun Surwase, Bhimrao Surwase and
Dattatray Surwase. The petitioner is the widow of Bhimrao
Surwase. It appears that by mutation entry No.1670 which is
recorded in the year 1993 the property was recorded solely in the
name of Arjun. Bhimrao died in the year 1998. It is only in the year
2008 that the petitioner approached the learned Tehsildar for
correction of the mutation entry No.1670 as the petitioner was
Mamta Kale
16-wp-5226-19
2/3
aggrieved by the fact that the name of the Bhimrao and for the
matter that Dattatray was deleted and the property was recorded
solely in the name of Arjun. It is not necessary to go into the
chronology of events prior to the Additional Commissioner passing
the impugned order on 4/7/2017 which has been confirmed by the
Hon’ble Minister by order dated 7/2/2018.
3.On hearing, learned counsel for the parties, it appears that
there is a document which is styled as a partition deed dated
29/6/1993 to which all the three brothers are party in which the
subject land has been conceded in favour of Arjun. It further
appears that the petitioner had filed regular Civil Suit No.76/2013
challenging the subsequent transfer of the property by Arjun which
was withdrawn on 11/12/2015 with permission to file a fresh suit.
Admittedly, thereafter no fresh suit has been filed. There appears to
a delay of about 15 years in challenging the mutation entry
No.1670. The Additional Commissioner in his order has inter alia
noted the delay in challenging the mutation entry, the filing of the
civil suit and its withdrawal and also the fact that the land which
has been allotted to the Bhimrao has already been sold, in refusing
to correct the entry.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that
there is a clear manipulation of the entry No.1670 by which the
name of Bhimrao was deleted from the record of rights of subject
land. It is also contended that the deed of the year 1993 being
unregistered document could not have been acted upon. The later
aspect has been considered by the learned Additional Commissioner
in order to find that if the document only records the factum of a
Mamta Kale
3/3 16-wp-5226-19
partition which has already taken place, the same does not require
registration. It also transpires during the course of arguments that
the part of the subject land has been acquired for the purpose of
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation during lifetime of
Krishna, father of Bhimrao.
5.I have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by
the learned Additional Commissioner as well as the Hon’ble
Minister. I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any
infirmity so as to require interference in the exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Mamta Kale
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Additional Commissioner's and Minister's order refusing to correct a mutation entry.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Indumati Bhimrao Surwase and Ors
Arjun Krishna Surwase and Ors
C.V. BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court