Bombay High Court
KALYAN KESHAVRAO THITEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that, having cancelled the illegal mutation entry and finding the officers acted in accordance with Sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, no disciplinary action is warranted and the petition must be dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, owner of land in Gut No.68/2, challenged a mutation entry that recorded a sale of 5 R land in violation of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. He alleged that the village Talathi and Circle Officer certified the entry without following the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and sought disciplinary action against them. The District Collector, after an enquiry, cancelled the mutation entry and concluded that the officers had complied with Sections 149 and 150 of the MLR Code, finding no ground for disciplinary action. The petitioner argued that the cancellation did not address the illegal certification. The Court held that the cancellation of the mutation entry fully redressed the grievance and that the officers had acted within the law, thus no further direction for disciplinary proceedings was necessary. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the mutation entry suffices to redress the petitioner's grievance and eliminates the need for disciplinary action against the Talathi and Circle Officer.
- Whether the officers violated the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in certifying the mutation entry.
- Whether the High Court should direct the Collector to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the revenue officers.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- mutation entry
- land fragmentation
- disciplinary action
- revenue officer
- writ petition
- Maharashtra law
- Land Revenue Code
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42044-DB
*1* 79-wp-3698-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
79 WRIT PETITION NO. 3698 OF 2024
Kalyan Keshavrao Thite
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Others
...
Mr. D. R. Kale h/f. Mr. Yogesh H. Lagad, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State
…
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs :-
“B. By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the
like nature, respondent no. 2 and 3 may kindly be
directed to conduct inquiry against erring officer as per
order cum letter dated 30.10.2023 and 18.11.2023 in
time bound manner.
C. By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the
like nature, respondent authorities may kindly directed to
take stern action against those officers who have
committed illegalities in contravening the provisions of
Fragmentation and Consolidation Act and pass
appropriate order against those officers.”
2. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of property in
Gut No.68/2 situated at village Mhalas Pimpalgaon. Out of said
land, 33 R land is jointly purchased by the petitioner and one
Narwade
*2* 79-wp-3698-2024
Dhananjay Karbhari Aher. Dhananjay Aher sold 5 R land to
Rutik Gorakshnath Kure in contravention of the provisions of
Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947, without permission from the revenue
authorities by way of a registered sale deed dated 07.10.2022.
The village Talathi and Circle Officer without following the
provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the
MLR Code) and without calling the objections from the
interested persons certified Mutation Entry No.4460, on the
basis of the sale deed, recording the name of Rutik Gorakshnath
Kure as owner of the said land. The petitioner took objection to
the same. Accordingly, an enquiry was held and the said
Mutation Entry is cancelled. The petitioner also sought action
against the village Talathi and the Circle Officer for certifying
Mutation Entry.
3. The District Collector has filed an affidavit in reply stating
that the petitioner on 11.09.2023 filed complaint to him about
the said Mutation Entry and requested him to take action
against the erring officers. He forwarded the said complaint to
the Office of Tahsildar, Newasa for enquiry on 18.11.2023.
Tahsildar, Newasa submitted his report dated 31.01.2024, which
Narwade
*3* 79-wp-3698-2024
was received by the Office of Collector. Pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court a photocopy of the said report
dated 31.01.2024 is placed on record which is marked as Exhibit
X-1.
During the course of enquiry, the explanation of the Talathi
and the Circle Officer was called. They submitted the documents
in respect of Mutation Entry No.4460 and their written
explanation. After going through the record and the written
explanation, it was revealed that the Talathi has recorded the
said Mutation Entry on the basis of sale deed dated 07.10.2022
executed by Dhananjay Karbhari Aher in favour of Rutik
Gorakshnath Kure for 0.5 HR out of Gut No.68/2. The Talathi
has recorded the said Mutation Entry on 10.11.2022. Since
objection was raised by one Bhausaheb Baburao Aher and the
petitioner to the said Mutation Entry, the said objection was
registered as Complaint Case no.15/2022 and it was considered
and decided by the Circle Officer after giving opportunity of
hearing to all the concerned parties including the petitioner. The
said complaint was decided on 13.02.2023 and the said
Mutation Entry has been cancelled. It is thus contended that the
grievance of the petitioner is redressed. It is also stated in the
Narwade
*4* 79-wp-3698-2024
affidavit that the record reveals that the concerned Talathi and
Circle Officer have discharged their duties as per the provisions
of Section 149 and 150 of the MLR Code. The Collector
therefore concluded that no disciplinary action is warranted
against them.
4. In the light of the fact that Mutation Entry No.4460 has
been cancelled, the grievance of the petitioner is redressed.
Since the Collector i.e., the disciplinary authority has recorded a
finding that no action against the concerned Talathi and Circle
Officer is warranted as they have followed provision of MLR
Code, we do not find any need to issue direction to the Collector
to initiate disciplinary action against the Talathi and Circle
Officer.
5. In the light of aforesaid discussion, writ petition is
dismissed.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Narwade
Checking your session…