Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6) Petitioners got aggrieved by the order dated 29 November 2017 passed by the DSLR and filed Survey Appeal No.1153 of 2021 before the DDLR. The DDLR initially allowed the Application for condonation of delay by order dated 29 March 2022 and proceeded to hear the Appeal on merits. By order dated 17 June 2022, DDLR allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners and set aside order dated 29 November 2017 passed by the DSLR. The DDLR however observed that proceedings were required to be initiated for challenging cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 3342 by applying for condonation of delay.

7) Respondent Nos.5 to 9 felt aggrieved by order dated 17 June 2022 passed by the DDLR and filed Revision Application before the learned Minister (Revenue). By order dated 21 March 2023, Revision Application has been partly allowed by the learned Minister holding that Aakarphod Patrak No. 12 of 1968 was not timely implemented and had therefore, become infructuous and meaningless. He further held that sub-division created by the said Aakarphod Patrak does not match with revenue entries relating to title. He further held that Mutation Entry No.3342 had also become meaningless. He however, held that the demand of Respondent Nos.5 to 9 for sub-division measurement of Survey No.279(new survey No.78) could not be 25 February 2025 Megha 57_wp_8460_2023_fc.docx conducted at regional level and that therefore there would be no impediment for conduct of such measurements as per Rules. The learned Minister therefore held that it was not necessary to interfere in the order passed by the DDLR. The learned Minister accordingly directed that land bearing Survey Nos.78/1A and 78/1B be subjected to measurement of sub-division. Petitioners are aggrieved by orders dated 29 November 2017 passed by the DSLR and 21 March 2023 passed by the learned Minister and have filed the present Petition.

1968 thereby sub dividing land bearing Survey No. 279 into 12 shares and allotting share Nos.279/1/5, 279/1/6 and 279/1/12 in favour of Hari Balwant Naik for the purpose of claiming title in respect of those three shares. The DSLR held that Aakarphod Patrak No. 12 of 1968 is liable to be set aside only on the ground that Mutation Entry No.3342 executed in pursuance thereof was set aside and new Survey number of the land bearing 78 is sub-divided only as 78/1A and 78/1B. The DSLR held that since 12 sub-divisions in respect of old Survey No.279 as per Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 are not given effect in the New Survey No. 78, it was necessary to set aside Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968. He accordingly directed the DSLR to set aside Aakarphod Patrak relating to old Survey No.279 by his order dated 29 November 2017. The DDLR however reversed the findings of the DSLR and held that Mutation Entry certified in pursuance of Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 was cancelled and that therefore, if the said Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 was to be given effect in the revenue records, it was necessary to first challenge the order cancelling the Mutation Entry. Thus, what the DDLR has done is to maintain existence of Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 and to grant liberty to Petitioners to challenge cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 3342 by seeking condonation of delay. DDLR's order essentially envisaged that Petitioners should take steps for giving effect to the Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 in the revenue records. The learned Minister while partly allowing the Revision filed by the contesting Respondents and held that Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 has been rendered meaningless. There was apparently a prayer for further sub-division of New Survey No. 78/1A and 78/1B and accordingly the learned Minister has directed further sub-division thereof.

19) DDLR though has set aside DSLR's order dated 29 November 2017, has advised the Petitioners to file an Appeal challenging cancellation of Mutation Entry No.3342. He has concluded that if Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 is to be given effect in the revenue records, it was necessary to first challenge Mutation Entry No.3342. The DDLR has stopped at this stage and did not really grant any positive relief in favour of the Petitioners. Petitioners however, achieved success before the DDLR in the form of setting aside the order for cancellation of Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968. The learned Minister added his share of confusion in the matter by passing somewhat self-contradictory order, which maintains DDLR's order but also holds that Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 has been rendered meaningless and infructuous. While maintaining the DDLR's order the learned Minister has upheld cancellation of order of DSLR, which actually had the effect of cancellation of Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968. One may therefore read the decision of learned Minister to mean as if Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 would continue to survive. However, by contradicting himself, the learned Minister has further held that the said Aakarphod Patrak No.12 of 1968 has been rendered infructuous. In my view, the observations and direction by the learned Minister upholding the DDLR's order is an obvious error and he has actually set it aside by holding that the Aakarphod Patrak has been rendered infructuous. Petitioners themselves read the 25 February 2025 Megha 57_wp_8460_2023_fc.docx learned Minister's Order as setting aside the order of DDLR and have accordingly filed the present Petition. It is therefore not necessary to delve deeper into this aspect as parties are ad idem that the Minster's Order negates the effect of Aakarphod Patrak.