Bombay High Court
VANDANA VIVEK NAIKAWADIversusADDL COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD DIVISION AURANGABAD AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court held that the revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction and quashed the orders recording the mutation based on the disputed partition.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the orders dated 20‑06‑2013 and 14‑07‑2015 whereby the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, and the State Minister recorded the names of respondents No. 6 and 7 in the revenue records on the basis of a disputed 1986 partition deed. The respondents had sought to have their names entered through the revenue machinery after earlier applications to the Tahsildar and Sub‑Divisional Officer were rejected. The High Court held that revenue officers lack authority to adjudicate substantive questions of title or the validity of a partition, which must be determined by a competent civil court. Accordingly, the Court found that the Additional Commissioner and the Minister had exceeded their jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code by acting as a civil court. The orders effecting the mutation were quashed and the pre‑existing revenue entries were restored. The parties were directed to approach the civil court for any declaration of rights regarding the partition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Commissioner and the State Minister can, under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, adjudicate the validity of a contested partition and record mutation entries.
- Whether revenue authorities have jurisdiction to determine substantive title disputes in the absence of a civil court decree.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 257
Subjects
- partition
- revenue records
- jurisdiction
- civil court
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- mutation
- writ petition
- land revenue
- title dispute
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9995
53 WP No.1235.2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1235 OF 2016
VANDANA VIVEK NAIKAWADI
VERSUS
ADDL COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD DIVISION AURANGABAD AND
OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant B. Choudhari
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. R. B. Dhaware
Advocate for Respondents No. 4, 5 and 7 : Mr. V. S. Undre (VC)
Advocate for Respondent No. 6 : Mr. P. K. Deshmukh
…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8309 OF 2016
….
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Date : 4th March, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned counsel for respective sides.
2. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners raised an
exception to the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned
Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in file No.
ROR/REV/PT/126/2012 and order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the
learned Minister.
53 WP No.1235.2016
-2-
3. The learned counsel for both sides submit that Respondents
No. 6 and 7 moved an application before the Tahsildar seeking to
record their names in the Revenue Records on the strength of a
partition deed. This application was initially rejected by the Tahsildar,
and a subsequent appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer was likewise
dismissed and filed an appeal before Additional Collector, Osmanabad,
who rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents No. 6
and 7 preferred a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The
Additional Commissioner allowed the revision, recording a finding that
a partition had occurred in 1986, and directed that the names of
Respondents No. 6 and 7 be recorded accordingly. This order was
confirmed by the learned Minister.
4. Upon a careful perusal of the record, I find that the
Revenue Authorities erred in adjudicating a substantive question of title
and partition. It is a settled principle of law that Revenue Officers
cannot exercise the powers of a Civil Court to determine the validity or
factum of a contested partition. If a party claims rights based on a
partition deed that is not admitted or is disputed, the appropriate
remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court to establish those
53 WP No.1235.2016
-3-
rights. Revenue entries are primarily for fiscal purposes and must follow
the decree of a Civil Court when substantive rights are at stake.
5. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, and subsequently
the learned Minister, exceeded their jurisdiction by effectively acting as
a Civil Court to validate the 1986 partition. Such an exercise of power
under the revisional jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
is legally unsustainable. While Respondents No. 6 and 7 maintain that
the partition was rightly considered, the Revenue Authority cannot
bypass the necessity of a civil adjudication where the partition itself is
the point of contention.
6. In view of the above, the Court finds that the Additional
Commissioner and the learned Minister exceeded their jurisdiction
while entertaining the matter. Therefore, the orders passed by the
Additional Commissioner and the learned Minister are liable to be
quashed and set aside.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The order
dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in file No. ROR/REV/PT/126/2012
53 WP No.1235.2016
-4-
and order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Minister, are
quashed and set aside.
8. The mutation entries as they existed prior to the Additional
Commissioner’s order are directed to be restored in the Revenue
Records. The parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court to seek a
declaration of their rights regarding the alleged partition.
9. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…