Nandkishor Nagare vs The Additional Commissioner & Ors.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Present Petition takes exception to the Order dated 26.05.2026, passed by the Respondent No.1, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, wherein the Review Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MLRC Code’ for the sake of brevity) against the Order dated 19.04.2022, passed by the Respondent No.2, the Additional Collector, Buldhana, is rejected.

The, Respondent No.1 vide impugned Order dated 26.05.2026, passed in Review Application No. 100/RTS-59/Sawkhed Nagare/2022 has confirmed the Order dated 19.04.2022, passed by the Respondent No.2 inter-alia the Order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the Respondent No.3, which in turn has quashed and set aside the Order dated 28.02.2020, passed by the Respondent No.4 which had rejected the objections filed by the Respondent No.5 and allowed the Mutation entry bearing no. 1591 with regard to the Well situated in Gat No. 374.

The facts short of unnecessary details, leading upto the filing of the present Petition can be summarized as under:-

(5.1) That, the father of the Petitioner (i.e. Late Shri. Bhaskar Dagadu Nagare) and the Paternal uncle of the Petitioner (i.e. Respondent No.5) had purchased a property bearing Survey No. 70/4/D and Survey No. 70/4/C, vide registered Sale – deed dated 04.03.1958. However, subsequently the said properties were renumbered as Gat Nos. 374 and 375 respectively.

(5.2) Thereafter on 16.12.2007, a Partition Deed was executed between the father of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5, wherein the land bearing Gat No. 374 was partitioned in favour of the father of the Petitioner and land bearing Gat No. 375 was partitioned in favour of the Respondent No.5.

(5.3) Subsequently in the year 2017, the Petitioner became the Owner of property bearing Gat No. 374, by virtue of registered Gift Deed dated 20.06.2017, executed by father of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought mutation of the said property in his name and accordingly a mutation entry bearing no. 1541 was recorded in his name.

(5.4) However, mutation entry with regard to a Well situated at Gat no. 374 was not effected and therefore, on 11.06.2018, the Petitioner filed an application for the same and accordingly, on 21.11.2018, a mutation entry bearing no.1591 to that effect was effected in favour of the Petitioner.

(5.5) Thereafter on 31.07.2019, the Respondent No.5 filed an objection against the mutation entry bearing no. 1591 before the Respondent No.4 and pursuant to which the Respondent No.4 vide order dated 28.02.2020 rejected the Objection filed by the Respondent No.5 and allowed the mutation entry bearing no. 1591.

(5.6) Being aggrieved by the Order dated 28.02.2020, the Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal under Section 247 of the MLRC Code, before the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 by relying upon the Partition Deed dated 16.12.2007 and mutation entry no.1233 came to a conclusion that the Respondent No.5 has a right in the well situated at Gat No. 374 and therefore vide order dated 28.04.2021, the Respondent No.3 allowed the appeal and set aside the Order dated 28.02.2020, passed by Respondent No.4 inter alia the mutation entry bearing no. 1591.

(5.7) Thereafter, being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Respondent No.3 the Petitioner herein preferred an Appeal under Section 247 of the MLRC Code, before the Respondent No.2 on 11.06.2021, pursuant to which the Respondent No.2 vide its order dated 19.04.2022, rejected the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and affirmed the Order passed by the Respondent No.3.

(5.8) The Petitioner subsequently preferred a Review Application under Section 257 of the MLRC Code, before the Respondent No.1. However, the Respondent No.1 vide its Order dated 26.05.2026, passed in Review Application No. 100/RTS-59/Sawkhed Nagare/2022 confirmed the Orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has assailed the order passed by Respondent No.1, before this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard Shri Rahul Ghughe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri K.H. Bhongade Learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri Raju Kadu learned Counsel appearing for Caveator/ Respondent No.5.

Shri Rahul Ghughe, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the father of the Petitioner had constructed the Well situated at land bearing Gat No.374, and the Respondent No.5 had no right whatsoever over the said construction of the well.

He would further contend that the Respondent No.4 had rightly rejected the objection of the Respondent No.5 and allowed the Mutation entry bearing no.1591 vide its order dated 28.02.2020, by rightly appreciating the fact that there was no proof of ownership available with Respondent No.5 in respect of the well situated at Gat No. 374.

Shri. Ghughe, further submits that, initially when the property was purchased in the name of Respondent No.5 and the father of the Petitioner, at that time no Well was indicated in any of the document and it was only after the partition of the land, the father of the Petitioner constructed a Well. He would further urge that the Partition Deed dated 16.02.2007 and the Mutation entry bearing no.1233 as relied by the Respondent No.5, is fabricated and bogus.

He further submits that in light of these facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Respondent No.1, 2 & 3 are not only cryptic and bereft of cogent reasons but also suffers from non – application of mind, as the learned Authorities have reversed the reasoned order passed by the Respondent No.4 by completely misapplying the law in respect of the mutations.

Per contra, Shri. Raju Kadu appearing on behalf of Caveator/ Respondent No.5 supports the impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.1 as well as the Orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

Shri. Kadu, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 would submit that in the year 2006, he had given a hand loan of Rs.50,000/-in cash to the father of the Petitioner for performing marriage of his daughter, and at that time no Well existed on the property. However, subsequently, he and the father of the Petitioner jointly took a loan of Rs.3,800/- by mortgaging the said land, for the purpose of constructing a Well and installing a motor pump. He submits that repayment of the loan and construction of the Well was also subsequently undertaken by him alone.

He further submits that subsequent to partition on 16.12.2007, land admeasuring 0.36 Hr each, had come to the share of himself and the father of the Petitioner, however, since the father of the Petitioner failed to repay the hand loan of Rs.50,000/- to him therefore, the father of the Petitioner had given 0.05 Hr of land out of his share of 0.36 Hr to the Respondent No.5, thereby reducing his share 0.31 Hr, a fact which is also duly mentioned in the Partition Deed dated 16.12.2007.

He would further urge that subsequent to the repayment of the loan taken for Constructing the Well, there was a mutual and unanimous adjustment and decision wherein the Respondent No.5 was given a share of “10 Aanas” and the father of the Petitioner was given a share of “6 Aanas” (16 Aanas = ₹1).

Shri. Kadu, would urge that on the basis of such adjustments as mentioned in the Partition Deed dated 16.12.2007, a Mutation entry bearing no.1233, dated 11.11.2009, was effected by the concerned Patwari, which was duly certified on 14.01.2010. However, the changes to that effect were not shown in the name of him and the father of the Petitioner. He further submits that the earlier Revenue Record wrongly shown land bearing Gat No.375 with area admeasuring about 0.38 Hr, belonging to him and land bearing Gat No.374, admeasuring about 0.34 Hr belonging to the father of the Petitioner.

It is further contended by him that the Petitioner and father of the Petitioner took advantage of the said fact, and tried to take back the possession of the 0.05 Hr of the land given by them and executed a false and bogus Gift – Deed dated 20.06.2017, wherein the Well was shown to be in ownership of the Petitioner.

Shri. Kadu would further urge that neither a 7/12 extract was annexed with the said Gift deed nor there was any need to execute such a Gift deed as the same would have been legally inherited by the Petitioner subsequently, which further creates a doubt over execution of the said Gift – Deed.

Lastly Shri Kadu submits that the Electric meter and also the Electric Bill stands in the name of Respondent No.5, who has been continuously paying the Electricity Charges to the authorities, and on this count as well he has a legal right to get water from the said Well.

I have perused the record with the help of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, and after hearing them at length, rival contentions fall for my consideration. It is the primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Tahsildar was just proper. However, after perusal of the same, I am unable to agree with the contention. It can be seen from the order of the Tahsildar, the only aspect which has weighed with the said Authority is that there is no material on record to show that there was an existence of well, share of which had fallen to the petitioner.

The Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly held that the partition deed between the parties was executed well before the execution of the gift deed, being executed on 20.06.2017. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that the conclusion reached by the Sub-Divisional Officer in his impugned order would amount to enquiry of title, I am unable to persuade myself with this argument.

The Sub-Divisional Officer in the impugned order has only recorded a finding that the partition deed is executed in earlier point of time and therefore having executed the same earlier, it was not open for the person to give the said property by way of a gift deed. Even though there is no reference of a partition deed in that contentious mutation Entry No.1233, it would not take the case of the petitioner any further. The said submission is factually incorrect since the contentious mutation entry, even though it indirectly makes reference to a mutual compromise, and probably refers to the said partition deed.

The Deputy Collector in the impugned order acting as an appellate authority has rightly confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer after taking into consideration the entire factual aspect of the matter and noticing the fact that the petitioner has not approached a competent civil court regarding the validity of the partition deed or the mutation entry.

Furthermore, as far as the order of the Divisional Commissioner is concerned, it has analyzed all the orders passed by the law authorities and has reached to a conclusion that there is no merit in the revision filed by the present petitioner. Thus, the fact remains that there are concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner, which the petitioner could not demonstrate as being perverse or suffering from jurisdictional error. It is a settled principle of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court would not act as an Appellate Authority and can only interfere if the findings are perverse or suffer from jurisdiction error.

After going through the entire record, and the orders of the authorities referred to supra, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the same. The petition is, therefore, liable to be rejected and is rejected as such.

Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged.