SHANTINIKETAN CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN RAMRAO GANPATRAO MAKNIKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:13843
                                                                                78.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            78 WRIT PETITION NO. 6011 OF 2016

               Shantiniketan Co Operative Housing Society Through Its Chairman
                                 Ramrao Ganpatrao Maknikar
                                           VERSUS
                             The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                                            …..
          Mr. M. S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. Momale U. L., Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Respondents – State
          Mr. S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent No.3
          Mr. V. D. Sapkal (Senior Advocate) i/b Mr. K. V. Patil, Advocate for
          Respondent Nos.4 and 5
                                            …..


                                         CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE        : 24.03.2026


          PER COURT :

          1.      Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


          2.      The petitioner assails the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the
          learned      Revenue     Minister     in    Revision      No.   RTS   No.
          2015/PRAKRA.281/J-7A, whereby the Minister set aside the order
          dated 09.05.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad
          who had remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO),
          Laur for fresh adjudication.


          3.      The learned counsel, Mr. Deshmukh holding for Mr. Momale
          appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the year 1966, land
          admeasuring 2 Acres 20 R was purchased by the petitioner–society,


                                                1
                                                                    78.odt


however, the mutation entry in respect of the registered sale deed was
not recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, the land was laid out
into plots and the same were allotted to its members. Certain open
space remained. He further submits that respondent Nos. 4 and 5
subsequently purchased the said open space, which had already been
purchased by the petitioner–society, and on the basis of the registered
sale deed, applied for recording their names in the record of rights.
Upon gaining knowledge thereof, the petitioner filed detailed
objections before the Tahsildar, Latur. The Tahsildar, after considering
the objections, rejected the same and directed recording of Mutation
Entry No.7668. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who confirmed the order of
the Tahsildar. A further appeal before the Additional Collector, Latur
also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision
under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, who, by order dated
09.05.2015, remanded the matter to the SDO with directions to grant
an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the Government
officers who sanctioned the layout plan. The said remand order was
challenged before the learned Minister of Revenue, who set aside the
order of the Additional Commissioner and restored the orders passed
by the SDO and Additional Collector, further directing the Deputy
Director of Land Records, Aurangabad / District Superintendent of
Land Records, Latur to effectuate mutation in terms of the order
passed by SDO.


4.   It is the contention of the petitioner that there is no dispute
regarding the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the
society; however, the same was not reported to the revenue

                                   2
                                                                     78.odt


authorities, and therefore, the society’s name was not entered in the
record of rights. Taking advantage of this, respondent Nos. 4 and 5
purchased the open space belonging to the society and sought
mutation on that basis. It is, therefore, contended that the learned
Minister ought not to have entertained the second revision filed by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In support, reliance is placed on Sections 149
and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the
Act”) and the decision in Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani Vs. Kakasaheb
Laxman Gorde reported in (2008 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 848). It is
submitted that once a remand order is passed, the Minister ought not
to have entertained a further revision against such order.


5.    The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, while
setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the
learned Minister has not recorded any finding explaining why the
Additional Commissioner’s order was being set aside, even though the
said order only to the extent of remand was assailed. Since the remand
order merely directed reconsideration, it would not have caused
prejudice to either of the parties.


6.    Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sapkal, instructed by
learned counsel Mr. Patil for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, supports the
order passed by the Minister. He invited attention to the cross-
examination of the son of the original vendor who had executed the
sale deed in favour of the petitioner, to contend that the petitioner had
title only to 3 acres of land. It is submitted that, at the time of
execution of the sale deed, the said land had already been acquired by
the Government and, therefore, the petitioner had no subsisting sale-
able interest. He submits that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the

                                      3
                                                                     78.odt


land from a person having valid title. It is further contended that even
if the petitioner’s case is accepted that the open space was handed over
to the Corporation, the same would not confer title upon the petitioner
merely on the basis of mutation entries. Learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the registered sale deed in favour of respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 has not been challenged before a competent civil court.
He emphasizes that mutation entries are effected only for fiscal
purposes and do not create or extinguish title. In this regard, reliance
is placed on the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO),
Additional Collector, and the Minister, to contend that revenue
authorities cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title, which fall
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil court.



7.    Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length, it is evident that both parties claim rights over the property on
the basis of registered sale deeds. The petitioner relies upon a sale
deed of the year 1966, pursuant to which the land was purchased by
the petitioner – society and subsequently developed into plots allotted
to its members. However, it is an admitted position that since 1966,
the name of the petitioner–society was not recorded in the revenue
record. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 rely upon a registered sale deed of
the year 2008. In view of the rival claims based on registered
documents, the dispute essentially pertains to right, title, and interest
in the property. In terms of Section 149 of the Act, mutation entries are
required to be recorded on the basis of registered documents; however,
such entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer or
determine title. Since both parties assert competing title over the same
property, such dispute cannot be adjudicated by the revenue


                                     4
                                                                         78.odt


authorities. The question of title falls exclusively within the domain of
the competent civil court. Accordingly, both parties are at liberty to
approach the civil court for adjudication of their rights. The mutation
entries presently existing shall remain subject to the outcome of such
civil proceedings. Upon determination by the civil court, necessary
entries shall be made in the revenue record.



8.      In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.




                                      [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]




Sameer/March-2026




                                      5