KAMALBAI BABRUWAN KOLGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:9996



                                                                   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