SHEETAL BABAN BHUJANGEversusRAJARAM KONDIRAM GAIKWAD AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42076



                                                              908 WP No.965.2006
                                              -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 965 OF 2006

                         RAJARAM KONDIRAM GAIKWAD AND OTHERS
                                        VERSUS
                           BHIKA RAJARAM PAIKADE AND OTHERS
                                             ***
              Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. B. R. Surwase
              Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anil A. Joshi
              Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sanjay K. Ghatvisave
              AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. D. Patil
              Advocate for Respondents No. 1-A, 1-B, 2-B : Senior Counsel Mr.
              N. B. Khandare i/b Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar a/w Mr. V. A. Babras
              Advocate for Respondents No. 7 to 9 : Mr. S. G. Magre

                                             ***
                                        WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4666 OF 2025
                                    IN WP/965/2006

                         AASHA MADHUKAR BHUJANGE AND OTHERS
                                       VERSUS
                           RAJARAM KONDIBA GAIKWAD AND ORS
                                             ***
              Advocate for Applicants : Mr. V. P. Latange

                                        WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7803 OF 2026
                                    IN WP/965/2006

                                SHEETAL BABAN BHUJANGE
                                        VERSUS
                         RAJARAM KONDIRAM GAIKWAD AND OTHERS
                                             ***
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. B. G. Lathe

                                             ***
                                        WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3776 OF 2019
                                                   908 WP No.965.2006
                                -2-

                        IN WP/965/2006

              SUMANBAI BANSHI PAIKDE AND OTHERS
                           VERSUS
            RAJARAM KONDIRAM GAIKWAD AND OTHERS
                               ***
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. S. G. Magre
                               ***
                           WITH
            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12893 OF 2024
                      IN WP/965/2006

       PANDHARINATH NARAYAN MOKALE AND OTHERS
                        VERSUS
 BHIKA RAJARAM PAIKADE DIED THR LRS LAXMAN AND OTHERS
                               ***
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. B. R. Survase
                               ***

                           WITH
            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12892 OF 2024
                      IN WP/965/2006

     BHIKA RAJARAM PAIKADE DIED LRS LAXMAN DIED SHANTABAI
                         AND OTHERS
                            VERSUS
           PANDHARINATH NARAYAN MOKALE AND OTHERS
                               ***
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar

                               ***

                 CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                   Date : 11th September, 2026

JUDGMENT :-


1.          The Petitioners have presented the Petition challenging

the order dated 06.09.2004 rendered by the Deputy Collector
                                                             908 WP No.965.2006
                                       -3-

(Land Record), Aurangabad in file number 2003/LR/TNC/A/6, has

been endorsed the order dated 24.10.2005 by the Divisional

Commissioner, Aurangabad in Revision Petition number 33/A/2005,

whereby the names of the Respondents                   entered into the

ownership column of the 7/12 extract of the subject land and that

possession be restored to them as heirs of the Watandars under

the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958.



2.           The dispute concerns land Sy. No. 67, ad-measuring

16A-6G,      situated   at   Village     Harsool,   Taluka     and    District

Aurangabad. The said land was allotted as Mahar Hadola service

Inam land. The revenue records in Namuna No. 9 from the year

1353 Fasli confirm that the Sanad was issued in favour of the

Mahar Hadola community and the land was recorded as non-

transferable under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition

Act, 1958.



3.           The appointed managers were Bhika Rajaram Paikade,

Dagdu Dhondiram Magre and Jairam Shivaram Bhujange. These

individuals subsequently took undue advantage of their status and

attempted to execute an agreement to sell the land to a tenant

named Daulat Ramlal. Therefore, the community presented an
                                                          908 WP No.965.2006
                                 -4-

objection through the petitioners against this transfer before the

Tahsildar, Aurangabad on 22.12.1977. Following an inquiry, the

Tahsildar issued an order on 30.12.1977 declaring the transfer

invalid and illegal, deleting the tenant's name and restoring the

occupancy rights. The Deputy Collector acceded the Respondents'

claim and the said decision was upheld in revision by the Divisional

Commissioner. Being aggrieved, petitioners approached this Court.



4.          Mr. Surwase, the learned Counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality.

The subject land, Survey No. 67 at Village Harsool, is a protected

Mahar Hadola (service Inam) land collectively granted to the

Samastha Mahar Community via the Sanad recorded in Namuna

No. 9 in 1353 Fasli. The ancestors of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were

never absolute owners; however, were merely designated by the

community as representatives to ensure cultivation and deposit of

land   revenue.   This non-transferable nature was affirmed              in

December 1977, when the Tahsildar invalidated an unauthorized

private alienation and restored the land to the community at large.



5.          The   Counsel   further    submitted   that    the   Revenue

Authorities exceeded the jurisdiction under the Bombay Inferior
                                                         908 WP No.965.2006
                                   -5-

Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, while separating community

Inam property into individual shares. By declaring that the

respondents hold exclusive 1/3 rd ownership shares, the Deputy

Collector and Divisional Commissioner arbitrarily divested the

community of their protected ancestral interest. It is further

submitted that the Authorities failed to conduct a mandatory

inquiry,   thereby     rendering    the      mutation    orders    legally

unsustainable and perverse. Thus, prayed that the writ petition be

allowed.



6.          Mr.     Magre,   the   learned     counsel   appearing     for

respondents No. 7 to 9, supported the submissions put forth by the

petitioners and submitted that the application presented by the

petitioner is outside the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar. The statutory

framework of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, the

Collector is designated as the Competent Authority. Therefore, it is

within the Collector’s power to determine issues, such as whether a

particular land constitutes 'watan land', whether a claimant

qualifies as a 'watandar', or if a person is an 'unauthorized holder'

of such property.



7.          The learned counsel further submitted that by virtue of
                                                      908 WP No.965.2006
                                 -6-

Section 18 of the Act, the statute restricts the delegation of

powers. Any delegation can only be made to an officer of an

appropriate rank and not below the rank of a Deputy Collector.

Consequently, the adjudication and subsequent decision rendered

by the Tahsildar in this matter represents a case of overreach and

absence of jurisdiction. The objection raised by the petitioners that

the mutation entries and the inclusion of the respondents' names in

the revenue records. Therefore, the dispute essentially and

predominantly has to be referred to as an adjudication under

Section 3 of the Act by the Collector or Competent Authority.



8.         Mr. Magre submitted that these defects were ignored

by respondent No. 5 (the Divisional Commissioner) while rendering

the impugned order. The Revisional Authority failed to appreciate

the errors of law and erroneously dismissed the revision petition.

As such, petition deserves to be allowed as prayed.



9.         Mr. Khandare, the learned Senior Counsel for the

contesting respondents, supported the impugned orders submitting

that the record unequivocally indicates the regrant of the suit land

in favour of the respondents. The regrant forms the foundation of

the respondents' title and possessory rights over the property. The
                                                                 908 WP No.965.2006
                                        -7-

restoration       of    revenue   entries     and   possession    was    a    legal

consequence of the valid regrant, resulted in the inclusion of the

respondents' names to the extent of their quantified shares.



10.              It is further submitted that the order of regrant passed

in favour of the respondents has never been challenged by the

petitioners at any stage or before any competent forum. In

absence of challenge, the order of regrant has attained finality. As

such, the same cannot be reopened in the present writ petition.



11.              It is also submitted that the attempt to dispute the

regrant     or    the    individual    shares   recorded   by      the   revenue

authorities,      such     challenge    is    now   time-barred.      Since    the

petitioners failed to approach the authority within the prescribed

statutory period of limitation under Section 3 of the Act, therefore,

the proceeding suffers from laches and delay, and therefore,

deserves to be dismissed.



12.              Mr. Khandare, the learned Senior Counsel has placed

reliance upon the following judgments :-

      (a)        Vithal Kondhalkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
                 (1981 Bom. CR 32)

      (b)        Writ Petition No. 3885 of 1996 (Vitthal Tanku
                                                               908 WP No.965.2006
                                       -8-

                Kalim Vs. Laxman Goty Attarde) delivered by this
                Court on 03.02.2020

      (c)       Vishwanath Sahadu Wakhare and Ors. Vs. State of
                Maharashtra and Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Bom.
                5081]

      (d)       Deepak Tandon and Anr. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
                [(2019)5 SCC 537]



13.             Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and upon perusal of the material on record, the issue that

falls for determination before this Court is whether the Revenue

Authorities (the Deputy Collector and the Divisional Commissioner)

acted       within   jurisdiction   while    directing   the   names    of   the

Respondents to be mutated for individual 1/3 rd shares in the

ownership column of the 7/12 extract of Survey No. 67. The

grievance of the Petitioners' is that the subject land belongs

collectively to the Community and cannot be partitioned or

confined to individual private shares.



14.             To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer

to the statutory mechanism under the Bombay Inferior Village

Watans Abolition Act, 1958. Upon the commencement of the Act,

all inferior village watans stood abolished, and the lands vested in

the State Government. Such lands are subsequently regranted to
                                                                   908 WP No.965.2006
                                              -9-

the lawful Watandars subject to the payment of the prescribed

occupancy      price.    In    the      present      case,   the   revenue   record

unequivocally establishes that an order of regrant was passed by

the competent authority in favour of the predecessors-of-interest

of the Respondents.



15.           It is an admitted fact that the original order of regrant

was never challenged by the Petitioners before any competent

appellate or revisional forum within the prescribed limitation

period. Mutation and revenue entries are merely consequential

ministerial    acts     that        reflect    the   substantive    rights   settled

predominantly by the order of regrant. Since the order of regrant

rendered      in   favour      of     the     Respondents     remains   valid   and

unchallenged, it has attained finality. The Petitioners cannot be

permitted to challenge the validity of a substantive order of regrant

by merely challenging the consequential mutation entries.



16.           The declarations and inquiries under the Act date back

to December 1977. The Petitioners have chosen to approach the

Revenue Authorities at first instance after lapse of several decades.

Allowing a challenge to              such an old regrant mechanism at this

belated stage would undermine security of title and render the
                                                             908 WP No.965.2006
                                   -10-

statutory provisions redundant. Consequently, the proceedings

initiated by the petitioner suffers from the doctrine of delay and

laches.



17.         The submission of Petitioners' that the land belongs to

the entire community, the Revenue Authorities have noted that the

names of the three original heads of the families, Paikade, Magre,

and   Bhujange,     have   been   continuously      associated     with    the

management, cultivation and occupancy of this land. The Deputy

Collector   (Land    Records)     and     the   Divisional    Commissioner

conducted inquiries and determined that the Respondents, as the

legal heirs of these three individuals, are entitled to have their

names mutated to the extent of their identified 1/3 rd individual

shares.



18.         The record is devoid of evidence to indicate that the

regrant was meant to be a community-wide allotment. On the

contrary, it endorses that the order of regrant was specifically

confined to the individual predecessors of the Respondents No. 1A,

1B and 2B .



19.         The submission put forth by the counsel for the
                                                     908 WP No.965.2006
                                 -11-

Petitioners that the action of the Tahsildar was a jurisdictional

overreach is fundamentally unfounded. The original proceedings in

1977 dealt with the removal of unauthorized occupancy or

encroachments upon ex-inferior village service watan lands. The

Tahsildar’s recourse to summary eviction was a valid exercise of

statutory power. Under the law, the term 'Code' refers the regional

land revenue frameworks, shifting from the Hyderabad Land

Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli to the present Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code, 1966.



20.          The authority of the revenue officer to evict an

unauthorized holder and manage regrant mechanisms is no longer

res integra. The said      position is settled by the authoritative

pronouncement of this Court in the case of Vitthal Kondhalkar

Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein it was observed as

under :-

           “8. In all these five petitions before us, the respective
           Collectors have passed orders of eviction against the
           petitioners under section 59(b) of the Code. The whole of
           section 59 of the Code is being reproduced below for
           ready reference :---

           59. "Any person unauthorisedly occupying, or wrongfully
           in possession of any land--

              (a) to the use or occupation of which by reason of any
           of the provisions of this Code he is not entitled or has
           ceased to be entitled, or
                                                     908 WP No.965.2006
                                -12-


             (b) which is not transferable without the previous
         permission under sub-section (2) of section 36 or by
         virtue of any condition lawfully annexed to the tenure
         under the provisions of sections 31, 37 or 44, may be
         summarily evicted by the Collector."

         9. The Collectors have taken action and passed orders of
         eviction against the petitioners only under Clause (b) of
         section 59. We may indicate here as to who are the
         petitioners before us. Broadly speaking they are either
         purchasers of land from ex-Watandars after execution of
         a regular registered sale-deed on payment of
         consideration or they are intending purchasers or the
         prospective purchasers who had executed an Agreement
         of sale and have further obtained possession by paying
         the entire sale price under the contract itself. In some
         cases under contemplation payment of ten times the
         assessment has been made but there is no specific order
         passed by the Collector inspite of such payment having
         been made. In one or two cases, it appears, the ex-
         Watandars have paid merely three times the assessment
         which is the occupancy price and have obtained the
         occupancy rights under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the
         Abolition Act. They have not paid the additional amount
         of ten times the assessment under sub-section (3) of
         section 5 of the Abolition Act. Inspite of the non-payment
         in this manner under sub-section (3) of section (5) of the
         Abolition Act, the purchasers have obtained sale-deeds
         and entered upon the possession of those lands. “


21.        As   such,   the   Tahsildar   merely   implemented     the

mandates flowing from Section 59 of the Code to clear the land for

the lawful regrantees. Hence, the objection regarding jurisdictional

overreach does not warrant consideration.



22.        The Petitioners' challenge to the Tahsildar's jurisdiction
                                                           908 WP No.965.2006
                                     -13-

further does not warrant consideration since the dispute raised

does not fall within the scope or ambit of Section 3 of the Act.

Section   3   contemplates     specific     statutory   contingencies   and

declarations regarding watan tenure. The application presented by

the Petitioners, being an objection to a mutation entry, does not fit

into any of the statutory categories contemplated under aforesaid

provisions.



23.           In   view   of   the     aforesaid    peculiar   facts    and

circumstances, it is not open for the Petitioners to contend contrary

to the issue of re-grant. Attempting to use an objection against a

mutation entry to overturn a long-settled estate, the Petitioners are

acting in direct violation of the Doctrine of Finality.



24.           It is a well-established principle that the High Court,

while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of Appeal to re-

appreciate pure findings of fact recorded by lower tribunals. The

scope of interference is limited to correct errors of law, patent

illegality, or perversity. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Basamma & Anr. Vs. Goparappa and Ors. (2026

INSC 712), a High Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction
                                                         908 WP No.965.2006
                                   -14-

under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot transform itself into an

appellate court to re-appreciate evidence, well-reasoned findings of

fact unless demonstrable perversity.



25.          The Authorities i.e. Deputy Collector and the Divisional

Commissioner have concurrently rendered findings based on

available revenue records and the finality of the previous concluded

inquiries. Therefore, I find no perversity or illegality in the

impugned orders warranting interference.



26.          The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for

the Respondents on the legal principles, especially regarding the

finality of unchallenged re-grant orders and the bar on belated

challenges, supports the case of the Respondents.



27.          In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition sans

merit. Hence, following order :

                               ORDER

      (I)    The Writ Petition No. 965 of 2005 is dismissed.


      (ii)   The impugned judgment and order passed by the
      Deputy Collector (LR), Aurangabad dated 06.09.2004,
      and     endorsed    by      the     Divisional   Commissioner,
                                                                908 WP No.965.2006
                                          -15-

         Aurangabad dated 24.10.2005, are hereby upheld.


         (iii)   Rule is discharged.


         (iv)    There shall be no order as to costs.



20.              Pending civil applications also stand disposed of.




                                             (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)


21.              After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned

counsel for the petitioners prayed for a stay on its implementation

to enable the petitioners to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The counsel further submitted that the interim relief granted on

05.03.2007 had been operating in favour of the petitioners.



22.              Considering the request made by the learned Advocate

for the petitioners and in view of the fact that interim relief was

operating        in   favour   of   the    petitioners,   the   operation    and

implementation of the judgment and order shall be stayed for a

period of twelve (12) weeks from today.




                                             (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

Omkar Joshi