Sunil Ajabrao Deshmukh vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

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

The present petition challenges the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Respondent No.9, whereby the revision preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed and the orders passed by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 were upheld. The Petitioner consequently seeks quashing of the orders dated 18.05.2023 and 07.11.2023 and restoration of the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by Respondent No.3, directing mutation of the Petitioner’s name on the basis of the registered Gift Deed dated 30.08.2001.

The dispute pertains to land situated at Mouza Nimba, Gat No.152, Survey No.17, admeasuring 13 Hectares 35 R. The Petitioner and Respondent Nos.4 to 8 are the sons and daughters of Ajabrao Deshmukh and Leelabai Ajabrao Deshmukh. The property originally belonged to Sumitrabai Wamanrao Deshmukh, mother of Leelabai, and came to Leelabai pursuant to a Will dated 23.02.1987. During her lifetime, Leelabai executed a registered Gift Deed dated 30.08.2001 in favour of the Petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 4.79 Hectares. The Petitioner claims to have been in possession thereof since 2001. On the same date, Leelabai also sold 0.81 Hectares of land to one Vasant Shivram Tayade by a registered Sale Deed.

The mutation entry made in favour of the Petitioner was subsequently challenged by Respondent Nos.4 to 8. The Tahsildar, by order dated 28.10.2012, cancelled the mutation entry. The Petitioner preferred RTS Appeal No.64/Nibha/09/2012-13 before Respondent No.3. By order dated 12.11.2013, Respondent No.3 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed that the name of the Petitioner be entered in the revenue record on the basis of the Gift Deed dated 30.08.2001. The Petitioner’s name was accordingly entered in the relevant revenue records. After a considerable delay, Respondent No.4 challenged the said order before Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, by order dated 18.05.2023, set aside the orders dated 28.10.2012 and 12.11.2013 and directed that the entry be made in the name of Leelabai, with further enquiry regarding the names of her legal heirs and subject to the decision in Regular Civil Suit No.43/2021.

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a revision before Respondent No.1, which came to be rejected by order dated 07.11.2023. The Petitioner thereafter approached this Court in Writ Petition No.7978/2023. By order dated 26.06.2024, the Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach Respondent No.9 and the interim protection was continued for a limited period. The Petitioner accordingly preferred a revision before Respondent No.9 on 16.07.2024. As the revision and the application for interim relief were not heard, the Petitioner again approached this Court. By order dated 19.08.2024, this Court directed Respondent No.9 to decide the revision expeditiously and continued the interim protection till decision of the revision. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed written submissions and Respondent No.9 passed the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 dismissing the revision.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the revenue authorities have exceeded the limited jurisdiction available to them in mutation proceedings by entering into questions relating to the validity and effect of the Will and the registered Gift Deed dated 30.08.2001. It is submitted that mutation neither creates nor extinguishes title and, therefore, Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 9 could not have adjudicated upon disputed questions of ownership in RTS proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the Gift Deed is a registered document executed by Leelabai during her lifetime and the Petitioner has been in possession of the property since 2001. It is contended that Respondent Nos.4 and 8 had earlier challenged the Gift Deed by filing Regular Civil Suit No.56/2002 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur, which came to be dismissed in default and continues to remain dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that thereafter Respondent Nos.4 to 8 instituted Regular Civil Suit No.43/2021 seeking declaration, partition, separate possession and injunction, but the Gift Deed dated 30.08.2001 was not initially challenged therein. Though applications for amendment were subsequently filed, there is no decree of the competent Civil Court declaring the Gift Deed invalid. It is further submitted that the application for temporary injunction filed in the said suit was rejected on 04.05.2022. According to the Petitioner, therefore, Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 9 ought to have maintained the mutation entry on the basis of the registered Gift Deed, leaving the question of title, if any, to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has subsequently transferred the property to a third party by a registered Sale Deed, which fact has not been properly considered by the revenue authorities.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 8 submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. It is contended that the rights of the parties in respect of the property are already the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.43/2021 and, therefore, Respondent No.2 was justified in directing that the revenue entries be governed by the outcome of the civil proceedings. It is further submitted that dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.56/2002 in default cannot be treated as an adjudication on merits regarding the validity of the Gift Deed. The Respondents contend that the Petitioner cannot seek adjudication of complicated questions relating to title, succession, the Will and the Gift Deed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.9 supports the orders passed by the revenue authorities and Respondent No.9. It is submitted that the revenue authorities have merely protected the revenue record pending adjudication of the parties’ substantive rights by the competent Civil Court and have not finally determined the title of the parties. It is therefore contended that no interference is warranted in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Learned AGP further submits that the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the Civil Court for establishing his rights under the registered Gift Deed.

As can be seen from the record of the matter, initially, there was an application made by Smt. Leelabai Deshmukh to the Nayab Tahsildar, Murtizapur, for partition of the property equally between her and her sons. The said application was allowed, and the order was challenged by the present petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the Nayab Tahsildar. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed this order on 12.11.2013. The main reason which weighed with the Sub-Divisional Officer in allowing the appeal was that the revenue authority had no jurisdiction to comment upon the legality and validity of the Will Deed and the Gift Deed. It further held that no enquiry, as contemplated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, was conducted.

Furthermore, in the appeal before the Collector, the Collector chose to disturb the findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer only on the premise that Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 43/2021 is pending and, therefore, the legality and validity of the Will Deed and the Gift Deed and the right to execute these documents would be within the domain of the Civil Court. It, therefore, partly allowed the appeal of respondent Kishor and quashed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, it restored the name of Leelabai Deshmukh and also directed that the said name be kept on record till the Civil Court, i.e., the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur, passes a judgment in R.C.S. No. 43/2021.

I find nothing wrong in the said order of the Collector. Furthermore, the Commissioner, in appeal, has also recorded the same finding and, looking to the narrow scope of appellate jurisdiction, the said authority, i.e., the Commissioner, has chosen to maintain the said finding since, admittedly, R.C.S. No. 43/2021 is pending. The State, i.e., respondent No. 1, has concurred with the order of the Commissioner on an additional ground, i.e., Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It has, by an elaborate order, framed certain points which rightly would not fall within the scope of enquiry or powers of the revenue authorities. It has, therefore, recorded a finding that whether the bequeathing of the property in question by Sumitrabai was a limited estate or not would fall within the domain of the Civil Court. It has, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the revenue application.

Admittedly, a civil suit bearing R.C.S. No. 43/2021 is pending. As can be seen from the reply filed by the respondent No. 4 in the present matter, amendment applications have been moved in the said civil suit challenging the validity of the Gift Deed executed in favour of the present petitioner. Even though the said applications have not been decided as yet, a lis pends before the competent Court of law. The findings of the authorities below, i.e., the Collector, the Commissioner and the State, i.e., respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 9, respectively, cannot be faulted with since they are supported by cogent material on record and have been passed looking at the limited scope of exercise of jurisdiction by the various revenue authorities.

Admittedly, a lis pends where the validity or otherwise of the Will Deed and the Gift Deed would be decided by the Competent Civil Court. I, therefore, find no perversity in the impugned order the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Rule is discharged.