the same would create no right in favour of the petitioner. By Mutation Entry No.1480, names of mother/Shevantabai Shelke and son/Popat Shelke came to be mutated on revenue record upon death of father/Haribhau Shelke. Thus, vide Mutation Entry No.1480 petitioner’s name was never mutated and therefore, nonchallenge to Mutation Entry No.1480 would not have any impact on the challenge raised by respondent No.5 to Mutation Entry No.2511. Name of the petitioner and her three sisters came to be mutated to the revenue records for the first time by Mutation Entry No.2511. The said Mutation Entry No.2511 was in the teeth of Release-Deed dated 10th November, 1994. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner erroneously glossed over the factum of execution of Release-Deed by the sisters releasing of their rights in respect of land in question. In my view, therefore, Minister, Revenue has correctly exercised the revisional jurisdiction in correcting the errors committed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner. Mr. Phalke, in support of his contention would rely on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Vijaykumar Kachrulal Abad Vs. Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. reported in 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 854 and submit that extraneous consideration cannot be a ground for exercise of revision under the provisions of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. In my view, reliance placed by Mr. Phalke on the judgment of this Court in the matter Vijaykumar Kachrulal Abad (supra) would
