Bombay High Court
Shri. Shailendra Baburao Wagh And Ors vs Shri. Vilas Baburao Wagh And Ors on 7 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:16888
k 1/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2657 OF 2021
Shailendra Baburao Wagh & Ors. .... Petitioners
V/S
Vilas Baburao Wagh & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Pradeep Thorat with Ms. Aditi Naikare for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde with Ms. Mayuri Karekar for Respondent No.1.
Ms. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4/State.
__________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 7 APRIL 2026.
JUDGMENT
1. By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged order dated 26 February 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) allowing Revision Application preferred by Respondent No.1 and setting aside the order dated 24 June 2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division. The Hon'ble Minister has directed Tahsildar, Trimbakeshwar, to record the name of Respondent No.1 as allottee of the land in his capacity as serving soldier.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the land bearing Gat No.97/1/1, admeasuring 1 H 80 R situated at village Chakore, Taluka Trimbakeshwar, District Nashik, came to be allotted in the name of Shri Baburao Parashram Wagh in the year 1976. There is dispute between katkam Page No. 1 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 2/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx the parties in respect of the said allotment. Respondent No.1 claims that the allotment is actually made to him on the strength of his status as serving soldier in the Armed Forces, but allotment was erroneously made in the name of father Shri Baburao Parashram Wagh. On the other hand, it is the case of the Petitioners that father-Baburao Parashram Wagh was a freedom fighter and a landless person and that therefore the subject land was allotted in his personal capacity. Since the allotment ultimately happened in the name of Shri Baburao Parashram Wagh, his name came to be recorded in revenue records vide mutation entry No.76. Late Shri Baburao Parashram Wagh passed away on 3 January 1981 and after his death, names of Petitioners and of Respondent No.1 were entered into revenue records.
3. In the year 2016, Respondent No.1 filed an Application before Additional Collector, Nashik for correction of name in the allotment order contending that the land was meant to be allotted to him but erroneously allotment occurred in the name of his father. He accordingly prayed for effecting necessary correction in the records. The application of Respondent No.1 was treated as Proceedings No.62 of 2016 and by order dated 7 February 2016, Additional Collector rejected the same on the ground that the same was filed after 43 years. Respondent No.1 preferred Appeal before Additional Commissioner, which came to be partly allowed by order dated 16 July 2019. The Additional Commissioner set aside the order of Additional Collector dated 7 February 2019 and remanded the proceedings for fresh decision. In the remanded proceedings, Additional Collector passed order dated 2 December 2019 dismissing the Application of Respondent No.1 on the ground of limitation. The order of the katkam Page No. 2 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 3/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx Additional Collector was confirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner by order dated 24 June 2020. Respondent No.1 approached the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) by filing Revision Application which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 26 February 2021. The Hon'ble Minister has set aside Divisional Commissioner's order dated 24 June 2020 and has directed Tahsildar to record name of Respondent No.1 in respect of the allotment of land. Aggrieved by order dated 26 February 2021, Petitioners have filed the present Petition.
4. By order dated 16 July 2021, this Court directed parties to maintain status quo. The Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. Mr. Thorat, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Minister has erred in entertaining and allowing the Revision preferred by Respondent No.1. That Additional Collector and Divisional Commissioner had merely refused to condone the delay and had rejected proceedings before them on the solitary ground of delay. That therefore the learned Minister (Revenue) could not have gone into merits of the matter. He further submits that Respondent No.1 did not file any application for condonation of delay. In support of his contention that delay cannot be condoned in absence of application, Mr. Thorat relies on judgment of Apex Court in Ragho Singh vs. Mohan Singh and others1.
1 (2001) 9 SCC 717 katkam Page No. 3 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 4/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx
6. Mr. Thorat further submits that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) suffers from serious error of law. That he did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Revision on merits. That lower authorities had not considered the merits of the case and therefore it is impermissible for Revisional Authority to directly go into the merits of the matter. Mr. Thorat further submits that entertainment of proceedings filed by Respondent No.1 under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) itself is without jurisdiction. That the allotment has been made under the provisions of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (the Ceiling Act) and that there is separate remedy available under Section 33 of the Act, if any person is aggrieved by allotment of the land. That there is specific period of limitation provided for exercise of remedy under the Act. He submits that under Section 27 of the Act, excess land can also be allotted to landless person. That in the present case, father was both freedom fighter as well as landless person and that land is rightly allotted in his name. He questions genuineness of application dated 24 January 1976 relied upon by Respondent No.1. He submits that the allotment order is dated 20 January 1976 and therefore the so- called application dated 24 January 1976 is clearly forged. He therefore prays for setting aside the impugned order.
7. Per contra, Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 opposes the Petition submitting that the Hon'ble Minister has correctly exercised revisional powers in the present case which ensures that the land is ultimately retained by the person to whom the same was meant to be allotted. He relies on copy of katkam Page No. 4 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 5/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx application dated 24 January 1976 made by the father. That under the extant provisions, it is permissible for father to make application on behalf of soldier. He submits that Respondent No.1 filed application for correction of mistake in the allotment order. That delay in preferring the application was already condoned by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 7 February 2019, which order Petitioner did not question. That therefore the issue of limitation cannot be raised by the Petitioners. That in the present case, father did not make any application for allotment of land for himself since he had other lands. He relies on copy of the relevant register in support of his contention that the allotment has occurred in capacity as 'serving soldier' and not as landless person. He prays for dismissal of the Petition.
8. I have also heard Ms. Raje, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent/State who supports the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue).
9. Rival contentions of parties now fall for my consideration.
10. In the present case, Respondent No.1 was employed in the Indian Air Force. It is his case that while he was posted at Delhi, his father Shri Baburao Parshram Wagh made an application to the President, Land Allotment Committee for allotment of excess land on the basis of his status as 'serving soldier'. Under the Section 27 of the Ceiling Act, excess land which is acquired under Section 21 can be distributed amongst various persons, which includes serving members of Armed Forces, Ex-servicemen, landless persons, etc. Relevant portion of Section 27 of the Ceiling Act provides thus:
katkam Page No. 5 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 6/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx
"27. Distribution of surplus land.--
(1) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, land (other than grazing
land or tank land or land notified by the State Government as not capable or being disposed of for cultivation) which is acquired by and vests in the State Government under section 21 shall, subject to the provisions of the Code, be granted by the Collector or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government in the order of priority set out in sub-sections (2), (3), (4), and (5).
(2) Where the surplus land belonged to a holder, who at any time before the commencement date, by resuming land from his tenant for personal cultivation under any tenancy law, has rendered that tenant landless, the surplus land shall first be offered to that tenant. (3) Where any part of the holding of a person which consist of one or more compact blocks is declared as surplus land under this Act, then such surplus land--
(a) shall first be offered to the landlord who had leased the land to the such person and such landlord has not exercised his right of resumption under the relevant tenancy law or under section 19; and
(b) then to a person, who being previously employed on the compact block as an agricultural labourer or as technical or other staff engaged on or in relation to the agricultural produce raised or grown thereon, has been rendered unemployed as a result of the land of such block being declared surplus land.
(4) Thereafter fifty per cent. of the surplus land (excluding lands referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be reserved for distribution to landless persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (whether residing in the Scheduled area or not) and landless persons belonging to such nomadic tribes, vimukta Jatis and backward classes as may be notified by the State Government from time to time, and land so reserved shall be granted to such persons in accordance with the rules made in this behalf. Such rules may provide for fixing priorities.
(5) Thereafter, all surplus land (including surplus land which has not been granted under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be offered in the following order of priority, that is to say,--
(i) a person from whom any land has been resumed by his landlord for personal cultivation under any tenancy law, and who in consequence thereof has been rendered landless, provided that such person is a resident of the village in which the surplus land for distribution is situate or within eight kilometers thereof; (ia) A non-Tribal-transferee whose land (being land of a Tribal transferor transferred to the non-Tribal-transferee) has been restored to the Tribal-transferor under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (Mah. XIV of katkam Page No. 6 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 7/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx 1975), and who holds no other land who earns his livelihood principally by manual labour on agricultural land. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, the expressions "non- Tribal-transferee" and "Tribal-transferor" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (Mah. XIV of 1975);
(ii) a person who had leased his land to any undertaking referred to in section 28 provided that, such person is a resident of the taluka in which the surplus land for distribution is situate, the net annual income of such person from all sources does not exceed four thousand rupees, and such person has not been granted any land under section 28-IAA;
(iii) serving members of the armed forces, and ex-servicemen, or where any such person dies before any land being granted to him by Government under this Act or any law of the time being in force or any executive orders, then his dependants;
(iv) landless persons :
Provided that, if there are persons having the same order of priority, then the person who is a resident within eight kilometers of the outer limit of the village in which the surplus land for distribution is situated should be preferred :
Provided further that, where the surplus land was previously held by a joint farming or a farming society, it shall first be offered to the person whom the society undertakes to take as its member and such person becomes the member of the society."
11. Respondent No.1 relies on application dated 24 January 1976 addressed by father-Baburao Parashram Wagh to the Land Allotment Committee. It would be necessary to extract relevant portion of the Application dated 24 January 1976 which reads thus:
"वि नंती अर्ज करीतो. माझा मुलगा श्री. वि लास बाबूरा ाघ हा भारतीय ह ाईदलामध्ये ३ र्षाापासून नोकरी करीत असून त्याचा नंबर ६४२१९६ असून हुद्दा - ए. सी. ट्रेड - आमरर सेकंड युविनट-ए. एफ. स्टेशन, न ी विदल्ली-३ येथे तो सध्या नोकरी करीत आहे. तो स् तः भूविमविहन सैविनक आहे. त्यामुळे त्यास नोकरी शिश ाय उदर विन ाहाचे कोणतेही साधन नाही. त्यामुळे त्यास अनेक प्रकारच्या अडचणींना तोंड द्या े लागत आहे. से ा विन ृत्ती नंतर मला उदरविन ाहाचे कोणतेही साधन असणार नाही. तरी मेहरबान साहेबांची कृपा ंत होऊन मला उदर विन ाहासाठी शेती करण्यालायक माझे कुटू ंब पोर्षाणा इतके उत्पन्न देणारी र्जविमन शक्य तितत्कया ल कर देण्याची कृपा करा ी ही नम्र वि नंती."
12. Petitioners question genuineness of application dated '24 January 1976' by inviting my attention to Mutation Entry No.76, which records the date of allotment order as '20 January 1976'. Copy of the allotment order is on record, which bears Number ' Ceiling-107/76'. The katkam Page No. 7 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 8/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx date on the order is slightly unclear. However, the same appears to have been issued in February 1976. By that order, various lands, which were declared excess, have been allotted to several persons including Shri Baburao Parashram Wagh. This Court is unable to draw any inference that copy of Application dated 24 January 1976 relied upon by Respondent No.1 could be a fabricated document for multiple reasons. First, mere reflection of date of '20 January 1976' in the mutation entry cannot be a ground for presuming that the application relied upon by Respondent No. 1 is ingenuine document. Second, the number of Order in Mutation Entry matches with the one reflected in the order viz "Ceiling- 107/76" which is apparently issued in February 1976 i.e. after the application dated 24 January 1976. Third, Petitioners are not able to produce copy of any other application made by the father for allotment of the land. Fourth the source of copy of letter dated 24 January 1976 is genuine as the same is a certified copy procured from records of Tahsildar. Fifth, in none of the orders, which are adverse to Respondent No. 1, the Collector or Divisional Commissioner have doubted authenticity of the letter dated 24 January 1976 and all orders proceed on an assumption that the letter is genuine one. Sixth, there is yet another contemporaneous document on record to indicate that allotment was made in favour of Shri Baburao Parashram Wagh on the strength of status as 'serving soldier', which is issued by Assistant Collector indicating distribution of excess land. It therefore cannot be concluded that the letter dated 24 January 1976 is manufactured subsequently for supporting the claim of Respondent No. 1 about allotment of land as serving soldier. It is therefore difficult to discard the said application by raising doubts about its authenticity.
katkam Page No. 8 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 :::k 9/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx
13. Thus, there is absolutely no material to indicate that the land was allotted to father-Baburao Parashram Wagh on the strength of his own status as freedom fighter or a landless person. On the other hand, there is ample material to suggest that allotment was sought by using status of Respondent No.1 as a 'serving soldier'.
14. Mr. Thorat has strenuously urged the point of limitation for questioning the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue). No doubt, Respondent No.1 preferred application before Additional Collector after considerable delay. The application dated 29 January 2016 was addressed not for correcting mutation entry or alteration of revenue records. The Application was made for correcting mistake in the name of allottee. The Application dated 29 January 2016 reads thus:
"वि र्षाय- मौर्ज- चाकोरे, ता. त्र्यब ं केश्वर जिर्ज. नाशिशक येथील शेतर्जमीन विमळकतीचा आदेश माझे ना े दरु ु स्त होणेबाबत.
अर्जदार- वि लास बाबुरा ाघ
रा. नाशिशक, ता.जिर्ज. नाशिशक
महाशय,
मी वि नंती पू क अर्ज करतो की मी भारतीय ह ाई दलात नं. ६४२१९६ से ेत होतो. त्या ेळी मी मा. जिर्जल्हातिधकारी साहेब नाशिशक यांचेकडेस शेतर्जमीन विमळणेकामी अर्ज केले ला होता. सदर अर्जाचा वि चार करुन मा मौर्जे चाकोरे, ता. त्र्यब ं केश्वर, जिर्ज. नाशिशक येथे गट नं. ९७/१/१ पै क्षेत्र ७ हे २० आर, स्थाविनक शेतीचे ना मोती लहानी मधील १ हे ८० आर ए ढे क्षेत्र विमळाले ले असून आर्जतागायत सदर शेतर्जमीन माझे कब्र्जे विह ाटीत आहे. सदर शेतर्जमीन मी स् तः कसत असून त्यात भात, नागली ही विपके घेत आहे. परंतु त्या ेळेस तात्कालीन जिर्जल्हातिधकारी साहेब नाशिशक यांचेकडेर्ज र्जमीन अलॉट करतांना माझे ऐ र्जी माझे तिडलांचे ना े सन १९७६ मध्ये विदले ला माझे डील नामे बाबूरा परशराम ाघ यांचे ऐ र्जी वि लास बाबूरा ाघ याना े आदेश होणेस वि नंती तहजिसलदार साो नाशिशक यांचेकडील आदेश क्र. १०७/७६ विद. २३/२७९ ने सदर विमविनची ाटप झाले ले आहे. मी से ाविन ृत्ती सैविनक असून माझे अर्जाचा सहानुभूतीपू क वि चार करून या ना े आदेश होणेस वि नंती.
आपला वि श्वासू, वि लास बाबुरा ाघ"katkam Page No. 9 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 :::
k 10/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx
15. The Additional Collector proceeded to enter into the merits of claim of Respondent No. 1. He recorded a finding that allotment of land was for the entire family and that Respondent No.1 was unable to produce any evidence that the land was allotted solely for himself. This is clear from following findings in the order dated 7 February 2019 which read thus:
"त्यामुळे श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांना कुटु ंबाचे पालन पोर्षाणाकरिरता र्जमीन ाटपान् ये विमळाले ली असल्याने सदर र्जमीन संपण ु कुटु ंबाकरिरता असल्याचे विदसून येते. श्री वि लास बाबुरा ाघ यांना त्यांचे स् तः करिरता व्यवि_शः र्जमीन वि तरीत करण्यांत आले संदभात त्यांनी सबळ पुरा े दाखल केले ले नाहीत. तसेच प्रकरणातील दाखल कागदपत्र पाहता अर्जदार यांनाच त्यांचे स् तः करिरता व्यवि_शः र्जमीन वि तरीत करण्यांत आले असल्याचे स्पष्ट होत नाही."
16. The above findings clearly indicate decision of application dated 29 January 2016 on merits. However, the Additional Collector thereafter went into aspect of limitation by referring to provisions Section 250 of the MLRC and held that the application was barred by limitation. Thus, order dated 7 February 2019 passed by Additional Collector was premised both on limitation as well as on merits.
17. The Divisional Commissioner set aside Additional Collector's order on 16 July 2019 by recording following findings:
"त्यामुळे विद. २४/०१/१९७६चा बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांचा अर्ज आशिण अर्जदार सामने ाले यांचे ले खी यु_ी ादात मुद्दे पाहता बाबुरा परशराम ाघ हे कोणत्याही भारतीय सशस्त्र दलात सैविनक म्हणून कायरत नव्हते ही बाब अर्जदार सामने ाले यांचे यु_ी ादात स्पष्टपणे विदसुन येत आहे. तसेच सामने ाले र्जरी त्यांचे यु_ी ादात मुद्दा नं.५ यामध्ये बाबुरा परशराम ाघ हे गो ा मु_ी आं दोलन संय_ु महाराष्ट्र चाळ ळीत देखील भाग घेतल्याचे तसेच भारत सोव्हीयत संघ तसेच कामगार लढ्यातमध्ये देखील सहभागी असल्याचे नमुद करीत असले तरी, र्जमीन अलॉट करते ेळी बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांचे ना ापुढे सव्हींग सोल्र्जर असा शेरा नमुद करून र्जमीन अलॉट केल्याचे विदसुन येते त्यामुळे र्जमीन अलॉट करते ळीचा तत्कालीन सहायक जिर्जल्हातिधकारी यांचा आदेश बाबूरा परशराम यांचा र्जमीन मागणीबाबत केले ला अर्जात वि संगती विदसून येते. त्यामुळे अपर जिर्जल्हातिधकारी नाशिशक यांनी र्जमीन अलॉट करतांना दाखल केले ले उपलब्ध मुळ आदेश, मुळ कागदपत्र तपासुन, तसेच बाबुरा परशराम ाघ हे भारतीय दलात सैविनक असल्याची किंक ा नसल्याची संबध ं ीत कागदपत्राबाबत संविदग्धता दरू केल्यानंतरच गुण त्ते र विनणय घेणे उतिचत होईल.katkam Page No. 10 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 :::
k 11/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx अर्जदार श्री.वि लास बाबूरा ाघ यांनी सुमोर ४३ र्षााच्या प्रदीघ काला धीनंतर अर्ज दाखल केले असल्याचे महाराष्ट्र र्जमीन महसून अतिधविनयम, १९६६ े कलम २५० मधील तरतुदी बसत नाही हया मुद्दया र अपर जिर्जल्हातिधकरी, नाशिशक यांनी अर्जदारांचे अपील फेटाळल्याचे विदसून येते. परंतु सदर प्रकरणांतील गुण त्ता पाहता, त्याबाबत मा. उच्च न्यायालय, मुंबई खंडपीठ, औरंगाबाद यांचेकडील रिरट विपटीशन क्र.१४०७८/२०१७ विद.३/०७/२०१८ मधील प्रकरणांमध्ये वि र्जेसिंसग र्जेसा सा े वि रुध्द महाराष्ट्र राज्य यामध्ये विदले लया विनणयानुसार प्रकरणामध्ये गुण त्ता असेल तर वि लं ब माफ करणेस हरकत नाही असे नमुद केले आहे.
उच्च न्यायालय, आं ध्रप्रदेश यांचेकडील Equivalent citation १९९६(२) ALT (४०/१९९८) IIILLJ ११४ AP, रामरा पी. आशिण इतर वि रुध्द कन्ट्रोसिंलग ऑथॉरिरटी इतर या प्रकरणामध्ये विद. २९ माच १९९६ मधील अतिधकारीतेचा अभ्यास करता मे. न्यायालयाने मुदतीचा मुद्दा उपलब्ध परिरस्थीती घटना पुराव्याचे अ लोकन करून गुण त्ते र विनणय घेणेबाबत नमुद केले आहे. सबब, मी विदलीप स् ामी, अपर आयु_, नाशिशक खालीलप्रमाणे आदेश पारीत करीत आहे."
18. The operative part of the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner reads thus:
"१. अविपलाथoचे अपील अंशतः मंर्जुर करण्यात येत आहे.
२. अपर जिर्जल्हातिधकारी, नाशिशक यांचेकडील क्र. कक्ष/४/कुका/३/का.वि /नोंद क्र..६२/२०१६मध्ये विद. ७/०२/२०१९ मध्ये विदले ला आदेश रद्द करण्यात येत आहे.
३. अपर जिर्जल्हातिधकारी, नाशिशक यांनी विनष्कर्षाात नमुद केले ल्या मुद्दय ् ा र चौकशी करून गुण त्ते र विनणय पारिरत करा ा.
४. खचाबाबत आदेश नाही.
५. आदेश स संबध ं ीतांना कळवि ण्यात या े
६. सदर विनणय eqjcourts.gov.in या संकेत स्थळा र प्रजिसद्ध करणेत आला आहे."
(emphasis added)
19. The order passed by Additional Commissioner remanding the proceedings to Additional Collector directs decision of the case on merits. Of course, there is ambiguity in the order and at times it creates an impression as if the aspect of delay was also required to be considered by the Additional Collector. However, it is difficult to conclude with sufficient degree of certainty that the remand was made only for the purpose of fresh decision on aspect of limitation. Order of the Additional Commissioner thus indicates that the Additional Collector was also required to decide merits of the case.
katkam Page No. 11 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 :::k 12/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx
20. The Additional Collector proceeded to decide remanded proceedings by order dated 21 December 2019 by entering into merits of the case and recorded following findings:
"प्रस्तुत प्रकरणी आढळू न आले ल्या बाबीनुसार स्तुस्थिस्थती अशी आढळू न येते की, मौर्जे चाकोरे ता. त्र्यब ं केश्वर जिर्ज. नाशिशक येथील गट नं. 97/1/1 ही जिसलींग कायद्यान् ये अतितरिर_ ठरले ली र्जमीन आहे. सदरची अतितरिर_ ठरले ली र्जमीन शासनाचे व्य स्थापनेखालील र्जमीन होती. त्यामुळे र्जमीन मागणी संदभात प्राप्त झाले ल्या अर्जा र काय ाही होऊन भु -वि तरण सविमतीने भुविमहीन पात्र इसमांना र्जमीन ाटप केले ली आहे. या प्रकरणाचे अनुर्षांगाने तहजिसलदार नाशिशक यांचेकडील उपलब्ध असले ली तत्कालीन र्जमीन ाटप संदभातील मुळ संतिचकेचे तसेच पक्षकारांनी दाखल केले ले कागदपत्र पाहता श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांनी विदनांक 24 र्जाने ारी 1976 रोर्जी अध्यक्ष, र्जमीन ाटप मंडळ नाशिशक तालुका यांचेकडेस र्जमीन मागणी संदभात ले खी अर्ज दाखल केले ला होता. त्या र्जमीन मागणी अर्जामध्ये श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांनी असे स्पष्ट पणे नमुद केले ले होते की, मला उदविन ाहासाठी शेती करण्यालायक माझे कुटु ंब पोर्षाणा इतके उत्पन्न देणारी र्जमीन विमळा ी. सदरच्या र्जमीन मागणी अर्जा रुनच श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांना भु - वि तरण सविमतीमाफत र्जमीन वि तरीत करण्यात आल्याचे त्यानुसार त्यांना गां ी मंडळ अतिधकारी यांचेमाफत कब्र्जा देण्यांत येऊन गां ी फेरफार नोंद नं .76 विद.6/5/1976 अन् ये त्यांचे नां अतिधकार अशिभले खात दाखल करण्यांत आले असल्याचे विदसून येते. रीलप्रमाणे श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांच्या र्जमीन मागणी अर्जातील मागणीचे स् रुप नमुद केले ली वि नंती पाहता श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांना त्यांचे र अ लं बून असले ल्या कुटु ंबाचे पालनपोर्षाण करण्यांसाठी स् तःचे चरिरताथासाठी र्जमीन वि तरीत करण्यात आले ली असल्याचे विदसून येते. त्यामुळे श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांना कुटु ंबाचे पालन पोर्षाणाकरिरता र्जमीन ाटपान् ये विमळाले ली असल्याने सदर र्जमीन संपुण कुटु ंबाकरिरता असल्याचे विदसून येते. श्री वि लास बाबुरा ाघ यांना त्यांचे स् तः करिरता व्यवि_शः र्जमीन वि तरीत करण्यात आले संदभात त्यांनी सबळ पुरा े दाखल केले ले नाहीत. तसेच प्रकरणातील दाखल कागदपत्र पाहता अर्जदार यांनाच त्यांचे स् तः करिरता व्यवि_शः र्जमीन वि तरीत करण्यांत आले असल्याचे स्पष्ट होत नाही. मुळ अर्जदार श्री वि लास बाबुरा ाघ यांचे असे म्हणने असे आहे की, तत्कालीन ेळेस भुवि तरण सविमतीचे ाटपामध्ये श्री बाबुरा परशुराम ाघ यांचे नां ा समोर सव्हींग सोल्र्जर असा उल्लेख करण्यांत आले ला असल्याने ती र्जमीन अर्जदार यांचेसाठीच वि तरीत करण्यांत आली असून अतिधकार अशिभले खांत श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांचे नां चुकीने दाखल झाली असल्याची शक्यता अर्जदार यांनी त्यांचे र्जबाबामध्ये नमुद केली आहे. तथाविप, अर्जदार यांचे म्हणने हे आर्जरोर्जी सबळ ठरु शकत नाही. कारण तत्कालीन ेळेस श्री बाबुरा परशुराम ाघ यांनी र्जमीन मागणी केली होती भुविम ाटप सविमतीने श्री बाबुरा परशुराम ाघ यांचे ना नमुद करून त्यांनाच र्जविमन वि तरीत केली असून त्यांचे ना ा समोर चुकीने "सव्हींग सोल्र्जर टंकजिलखीत केल्या गेले असू शकते. आर्ज रोर्जी सुमारे 40-50 र्षाापु o लाभधारकाचे नां चुकीने टंकजिलखिखत झाले विक, लाभधारकासमोर चुकीने "सव्हींग सोल्र्जर" टंकजिलखिखत झाले हा ादाचा वि र्षाय असून ती बाब आर्ज रोर्जी स्पष्ट होऊ शकत नाही. मात्र तत्कालीन ेळेस श्री बाबुरा परशराम ाघ यांनी र्जमीन मागणी केली असल्याने त्यांचे नां नमुद करुन त्यांना र्जमीन वि तरीत करण्यांत आली होती असे उपलब्ध पुराव्या रुन विनष्पन्न होते."
(emphasis added)
21. Thus, the Additional Collector considered merits of the case. He treated application dated 24 January 1976 as a genuine document. He did not doubt its authenticity. However, the Additional Collector katkam Page No. 12 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 13/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx recorded baseless surmise that the entry 'serving soldier' in the allotment order could be a typographical error. This finding recorded by the Additional Collector is perverse to the core. The Application dated 24 January 1976 specifically makes a demand for Respondent No.1 on the basis of his status as serving soldier and therefore there is no question of any typographical error in the order of allotment. The Additional Collector thereafter referred to provisions of Section 250 of the MLRC and added the ground of limitation for rejecting the application of Respondent No.1.
22. The Additional Divisional Commissioner has confirmed the order of the Additional Collector. In his order, the Divisional Commissioner also treated application dated 24 January 1976 as a genuine document and he also held that it was impossible to determine after 40-50 years as to whether name of allottee was a typographical error or entry of serving soldier is a typographical error. However, this finding is again perverse and is recorded in ignorance of contents of application dated 24 January 1976.
23. The Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) has ultimately appreciated the correct factual and legal position and has recorded following findings:
"६.२ अर्जदार हे मार्जी सैविनक असून त्या अतिधकारात त्यांना अतितरिर_ शेत र्जविमनीपैकी र्जमीन विमळण्याचा हक्क होता त्या अनुर्षांगाने त्यांनी जिर्जल्हातिधकारी, नाशिशक यांच्याकडे र्जमीन विमळणे कामी अर्ज केला होता. तथाविप अर्जदार हे तेव्हा कायरत असल्याने त्यांच्या ऐ र्जी त्यांच्या तिडलांनी सदरचा अर्ज केला होता. त्या अनुर्षांगाने जिर्जल्हातिधकारी, नाशिशक यांनी र्जमीन ाटप केली असून नर्जरचुकीने अर्जदारांच्या ऐ र्जी अर्जदारांच्या तिडलांच्या ना े ाटपाचे आदेश केले आहेत. तथाविप र्जमीन विमळण्यास अर्जदार हे मूलतः पात्र असल्याने जिर्जल्हातिधकारी यांचे आदेश त्या अनुर्षांगाने झाले ली ारस नोंद ही चुकीची आहे, असा अर्जदारांचा दा ा आहे. तसेच अर्जदार र्जाबदार यांचे डील यांनी वि वि ध सामाजिर्जक क्षेत्रामध्ये चांगल्याय प्रकारे कामकार्ज केले आहे. तसेच १९७५ मध्ये कैद्र सरकारने राबवि ले ल्या २० कलमी कायक्रमा अतगत भुविमविहनांना र्जमीन ाटप योर्जनेमध्ये त्यांनी मोलाचे योगदान विदले ले आहे. त्यांचे हे काय लक्षात घे ून अर्जदार र्जाबदार यांचे डील यांचे तिडल यांना महाराष्ट्र शेतर्जमीन कमाल मयादाचे कायदयानुसार अतितरी_ ठरले ली र्जमीन ाटपाने विद.०६/०५/११७६ रोर्जी सभापती भुवि तरण न्यायातिधकरण katkam Page No. 13 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 14/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx नाशिशक यांनी जिसलींग नं.१०७/२०/१/१९७६ अन् ये कुटु ंबाच्या विन ाहासाठी विदले ली असा र्जाबदार यांचा दा ा आहे. याबाबत नमूद करण्यात येते की, ाद विमळकतीचे अतिधकार अशिभले खाचे अ लोकन केले असता विदसून येते की, सदर ाद विमळकत ही अर्जदार यांचे तीने अर्जदार यांचे तिडल श्री. बाबुरा परशुराम ाघ यांनी मागणी केले ली होती. त्यांनी त्यांचे विद. २४/१/१९७६ रोर्जीचे र्जमीन मागणी अर्जात नमूद केले आहे की, 'माझा मुलगा श्री. वि लास बाबूरा ाघ हा भारतीय ह ाईदलामध्ये ३ र्षाापासून नोकरी करीत असून त्याचा नंबर ६४२१९६ असून हुद्दा - ए. सी. ट्रेड - आमरर सेकंड युविनट-ए. एफ. स्टेशन, न ी विदल्ली-३ येथे तो सध्या नोकरी करीत आहे. तो स् तः भूविमविहन सैविनक आहे. त्यामुळे त्यास नोकरी शिश ाय उदर विन ाहाचे कोणतेही साधन नाही. त्यामुळे त्यास अनेक प्रकारच्या अडचणींना तोंड द्या े लागत आहे. से ा विन ृत्ती नंतर मला उदरविन ाहाचे कोणतेही साधन असणार नाही. तरी मेहरबान साहेबांची कृपा ंत होऊन मला उदर विन ाहासाठी शेती करण्यालायक माझे कुटू ंब पोर्षाणा इतके उत्पन्न देणारी र्जविमन शक्य तितत्कया ल कर देण्याची कृपा करा ी ही नम्र वि नंती. खाली दशवि ले ल्या र्जविमनीपैकी त्यास र्जमीन विमळा ी.' सदर अर्जात श्री. बाबुरा परशुराम ाघ हे भारतीय सैन्य दलात सैविनक असल्याचे नमूद केले ले नाही. तथाविप मार्जी सैविनकांना अतितरिर_ र्जमीन ाटप करणे संदभातील शासनाच्या मागदशक सूचनांनुसार अतितरिर_ ठरवि ले ली र्जमीन ाटप करताना भारतीय सैन्य दलात सैविनक नसले ल्या व्य_ीला ाटप करता येत नाही. या पार्श्वभूमी र सदर ाद विमळकतीचे अतिधकार अशिभले खात के ळ अर्जदार यांचे ना दाखल करणे आ श्यक होते. ही बाब अपर जिर्जल्हातिधकारी यांनी आदेश पारिरत करते ेळी वि चारात घेतले ली नसून अपर जिर्जल्हातिधकारी यांचे आदेश हे अपर आयु_ यांनी सदोर्षारिरत्या कायम केले असल्याने अपर आयु_ यांचे आदेश रद्द करणे उतिचत होणार आहे."
24. As observed above, neither the Additional Collector nor Divisional Commissioner had rejected Petitioners' applications/appeal only on the ground of delay. They had specifically gone into the merits of the case and had recorded perverse finding about typographical error. The Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) has rightly appreciated the position by taking into consideration contents of application dated 24 January 1976. In view of the fact that the lower authorities had also considered merits of the case, it cannot be contended that the Hon'ble Minister did not have jurisdiction to go into the merits on account of the delay involved in the case. Additionally, the remand order dated 16 July 2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner clearly created impression of condonation of delay and consideration of application on merits.
25. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the katkam Page No. 14 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 15/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx Petitioners that the Hon'ble Minister has committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. The present case does not involve mere challenge to a mutation entry and therefore provisions of limitation prescribed under MLRC may not strictly apply to the present case. The Application preferred by Respondent No.1 was merely for correction of name in the allotment order. This Application was erroneously treated as an application for correcting the mutation entry. Correction of revenue records may be a consequence arising out of correction of name in the allotment order. Considering these peculiar circumstances, in my view, the Hon'ble Minister has rightly set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The order passed by the Hon'ble Minister results in a situation where the allotment remains in the name of the person to whom the land was supposed to be allotted.
26. Reliance by Mr. Thorat on judgment of the Apex Court in Ragho Singh (supra) is inapposite as the proceedings initiated by the Petitioners before the Additional Collector were not for challenging the Mutation Entry and application of precisions of Section 250 of the MLRC is doubtful. His reliance on provisions of Section 30 of the Ceiling Act is also misplaced as Respondent No.1 did not question the allotment order. Section 30 creates a remedy in favour of a person whose land is acquired as excess land or if the allotment is wrongfully rejected. He merely prayed for correction in the name of the allottee. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there was remedy available under Section 30 of the Ceiling Act.
katkam Page No. 15 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 :::k 16/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx
27. The present case involves a situation where land meant to be allotted to serving soldier is virtually grabbed by other family members merely because the application was made by father on account of posting of Respondent No.1 at New Delhi while serving in Indian Air Force. The Land Allotment Committee made a mistake, and the allotment was made in the name of father though the same was to be allotted to a serving soldier. The impugned order results in a situation that the serviceman ultimately enjoys the land which was meant to be allotted to him and persons who are not supposed to enjoy the same are denied benefits attached to the same. This Court is satisfied with the ultimate conclusion of the proceedings. It is well settled position that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and corrective in nature. It is extraordinary jurisdiction, which need not be exercised for correcting every error of law or fact. So long as the Court is satisfied with ultimate conclusion of proceedings, exercise of jurisdiction can be declined. Reference in this regard can be made to judgment of the Apex Court in Garment Craft V/s. Prakash Chand Goel2 where it is held in paragraph 15 as under:
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, 2 (2022) 4 SCC 181 katkam Page No. 16 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 ::: k 17/17 4 wp 2657.21 J as.docx or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice."
28. Considering the above position, I do not consider this to be a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the impugned order is interfered with, the same would result in a situation that the land allotted to a member of Indian Air Force would be actually enjoyed by ineligible and unwanted persons. I am therefore not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
29. Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
30. After the order is pronounced, Mr. Thorat, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays for continuation of order of status quo granted by this Court on 16 July 2021 for a period of eight weeks. The prayer is opposed by Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. Considering the nature of findings recorded in the order, I am not inclined to continue the order of status-quo. The request for continuation of status-quo is accordingly rejected.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date:
2026.04.09 14:56:17 +0530 katkam Page No. 17 of 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:31:22 :::