Bombay High Court
SHANKAR HIRAJI DARADE THROUGH LRS ANNASAHEB SHANKAR DARADE AND OTHERSversusNARAYAN TUKARAM DAGADKHAIR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Tahsildar correctly exercised the power under section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to correct the clerical error, and the orders correcting the mutation entry stand.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of the deceased Shankar Hiraji Darade, claimed ownership of 83 R of land purchased in 1983, which was entered in the revenue records in their name. In 2011 the respondent applied to correct the mutation, asserting that only 30 R was sold to the petitioners, 23 R remained with him and 30 R had been acquired by the Government but not reflected in the records. The Tahsildar, without hearing the petitioners, corrected the mutation entry, allocating 23 R to the respondent, 30 R to the Government and 30 R to the petitioners. Subsequent appeals upheld the Tahsildar’s order, and the petitioners filed a writ under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Court held that the Tahsildar was empowered by section 155 to correct clerical errors, that no limitation barred the correction, and that the Tahsildar did not decide title or exceed powers under section 258. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The Tahsildar’s jurisdiction under section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to correct a mutation entry after a long delay without notice or hearing.
- Whether the correction of mutation entry is barred by any limitation period.
- Whether the Tahsildar exceeded powers under section 258 by reviewing his own order or deciding title and possession.
- Whether the petitioners can claim benefit from the erroneous mutation entry.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 155, 257, 258
Subjects
- land revenue
- mutation correction
- clerical error
- section 155 MLR Code
- section 257 MLR Code
- section 258 MLR Code
- administrative law
- property title
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:2921
1 WP / 14715 / 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14715 OF 2019
Shankar Hiraji Darade
(Since deceased through his legal heirs)
1. Annasaheb Shankar Darade
Age : 46 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o : Village Hanuman Takali
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. : Ahmednagar
Presently, R/o : Village Vanjarwadi
Tq. : Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar
2. Chandrabhaga Shankar Darade
Age : 66 years, Occu : Household,
R / o : As above
3. Bahusaheb Shankar Darade
Age : 48 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o : As above
4. Vashali @ Bhimabai Vittal Bade
Age : 40 years, Occu : Household,
R/o : Village Ganeshwadi
Tq. : Nevasa, Dist. Ahmednagar
5. Suman Arun Avhad
Age : 37 years, Occu : Household,
R/ o : Sandeshnagar, Ahmednagar
Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar
6. Anjali Sunil Avhad
Age : 37 years, Occu : Household,
R/o : Agri. University, Rahuri
Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Petitioners
Versus
1-A The State of Maharashtra
Through G.P. High Court of Bombay
Bench at Aurangabad
1. Narayan Tukaram Dagadkhair
Age : Major, Occu. Agril.,
R/o : Village Hanuman Takali,
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar
2 WP / 14715 / 2019
2. The Add. Divisional Commissioner
Nashik Division, Nashik
3. The Add. District Collector,
Ahmednagar
4. Sub – Divisional Officer,
Ahmednagar
5. The Tahsildar, Pathardi
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Shrimant Mundhe
Advocate for respondent no. 1 : Mr. S.W. Munde h/f. Mr. A.P. Raka
AGP for respondent no. 1A, 2 to 5 : Mrs. D.S. Jape
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
RESERVED ON : 19 JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 JANUARY 2026
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioners are assailing the
order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the learned Minister, order dated
12.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, the
order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Additional Collector,
Ahmednagar and order dated 08.06.2011 passed by the Tahsildar,
Pathardi.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner- deceased Shankar
Hiraji Darade purchased the land survey no. 51/4 admeasuring 83 R
from respondent no.1 by registered sale deed No. 216/1983 on
3 WP / 14715 / 2019
12.12.1983. In pursuance of which mutation entry no. 1965 was taken
and the name of the petitioner – Shankar Hiraji Darade was recorded in
the revenue record. Defendant no. 1, after 29 years on 03.03.2011,
filed an application before Tahsildar, Pathardi for correction of mutation
entry no. 1965, by stating that he had sold only 30R land to petitioner –
deceased Shankar Hiraji Darade but wrongly, the name of petitioner-
deceased Shankar Darade was recorded on 83 R land.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Tahsildar, Pathardi without hearing the petitioner, without following due
process of law and without condoning the delay of 29 years, allowed
the correction of mutation entry no. 1965, thereby mutating 23 R land in
the name of the respondent no. 1, 30R land in the name of the
Government and remaining 30R land in the name of the petitioner –
deceased Shankar Hiraji Darade. The said order was assailed by filing
appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, who allowed the appeal and
set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, appeal was filed before the
Additional Collector, who allowed the appeal and confirmed the order of
the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved, appeal was filed before the Additional
Commissioner, who also confirmed the order of the Tahsildar. Being
aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Additional Collector,
Additional Commissioner, petitioners preferred revision before the
learned Minister under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, 1966 who confirmed the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner, thereby confirming the order passed by Tahsildar.
7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
8. Mr. Munde submits that the Tahsildar does not have power
under section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to correct
4 WP / 14715 / 2019
the mutation entry and condone the delay of 29 years without there
being any specific application for the same. The Tahsildar does not
have power under section 258 of the MLR Code to review its own
order, decide the title and possession over the property. He further
submits that the Tahsildar did not issue notice to the petitioners while
correcting the mutation entry no. 1965 and without hearing the
petitioners, mutation entries were corrected. Therefore, he submits that
the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the Additional Collector, the
Additional Commissioner and the learned Minister are liable to be
quashed and set aside.
9. In support of his submissions, he invited my attention to
the sale deed dated 12.12.1983, wherein it was specifically mentioned
that the petitioners had purchased 83 R land.
10. The learned AGP supports the orders passed by the
learned Minister. Out of 83 R land, 30 R land was already acquired by
the Irrigation Department but the name of the Government was not
mutated in the revenue record.
11. Considering the issue involved, it is useful to refer to
section 155 of the MLR Code, which reads as under :-
“155. Correction of clerical errors.— The Collector may, at any time,
correct or cause to be corrected any clerical errors and any errors which
the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights or
registers maintained under this Chapter or which a revenue officer may
notice during the course of his inspection :
Provided that, when any error is noticed by a revenue officer
during the course of his inspection, no such error shall be corrected
unless a notice has been given to the parties and objections, if any,
have been disposed of finally in accordance with the procedure relating
to disputed entries.”
12. Considering the submissions and after going through the
registered sale deeds placed on record at page no. 24 , wherein the
5 WP / 14715 / 2019
total area of 83R is mentioned but out of that 30R land was already
acquired by the Government though mutation entry to that effect was
not recorded in the revenue record and as per sale deed, respondent
no. 1 sold only 30R land to the petitioners, therefore, 23R land
remained with the respondent no. 1. Therefore, the petitioners’ names
which were recorded on the entire 83 R land, stood corrected by the
Tahsildar by exercising the powers under section 155 of the MLR Code
as the Tahsildar is authorized in law to correct the clerical mistake.
13. In this case, the Tahsildar has not decided the title of the
parties but he has only corrected the mutation entries on the basis of
the registered sale deeds. Though the excess of area was mistakenly
shown in the name of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be
benefited by the same. So far as limitation for correction of mutation
entry is concerned, the law is silent on this point and the revenue
authority is authorized to correct the same as and when the mistake is
brought to its notice. Therefore, the Tahsildar has rightly exercised the
powers under section 155 of the MLR Code.
14. As regards the powers under section 258 of the MLR
Code, the Tahsildar has not reviewed his earlier order; rather he has
only corrected the mistaken revenue entry, which was apparent on the
record. Also, the Tahsildar has not decided the title and possession of
the parties, but has merely corrected the revenue entry.
15. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be benefited by the
mistake in the revenue record as it is apparent on the record that 30R
land was acquired by the Government but the same was not mutated in
its name.
6 WP / 14715 / 2019
16. Therefore, considering the above, I do not find any reason
to interfere with the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the learned
Minister, order dated 12.07.2018 passed by learned Additional
Divisional Commissioner, the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the
Additional Collector, Ahmednagar and order dated 08.06.2011 passed
by the Tahsildar, Pathardi. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order :
ORDER
I) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
II) No order as to costs.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
17. After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel
for the petitioner strongly opposed the continuation of the interim order
which was granted on 17.01.2020. Since the interim relief has been in
operation, I am not inclined to continue the same beyond a period of
six weeks from today. Therefore, the interim relief granted by this
Court vide order dated 17.01.2020, is continued for a period of six
weeks from today.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
arp/
Checking your session…