1. The First petitioner claims to be the owner of two plots of land at Manori bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268. The lands are stated to admeasure approximately 18 acres and 6 gunthas and are separated by a piece of land bearing Survey No. 260. The claim of the petitioners is that these lands were the ancestral lands of the First petitioner. The claim is that, under a Deed of Conveyance dated 25th February, 1899, the lands came to be purchased by Mr. Premchand Roychand from Hirjeebhai Manekjee Vasanwala. According to the petitioners, these lands were thereafter bequeathed by Premchand Roychand to his son Kikabhai Premchand, from whom in turn the lands devolved upon his brother Maneklal. Maneklal is stated to have bequeathed these properties to his wife Tara Premchand. The First petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Tara Premchand, while the Second petitioner is the daughter of the First Petitioner. In support of the plea of being lawful owners of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268, the petitioners have relied upon a compilation of documents, inter alia, consisting of a copy of the indenture dated 25th February, 1899 and the Probates of the Wills of Maneklal Premchand and Tara Premchand granted by this Court in exercise of the Testamentary and intestate Jurisdiction. Now it is also common ground that the revenue records in respect of the disputed Survey numbers duly reflected the names of Kikabhai and Maneklal and of Shri Kishor Maneklal, as the Kabjedar. In the compilation of documents, the petitioners have annexed copies of the relevant revenue records. Reliance has also been placed on an agreement entered into on 2nd July, 1946 between the Governor General in Council and Kikabhai by which in pursuance of the provisions of section 19(1)(a) of the Defence of India Act, 1939, an agreement in regard to the payment of compensation was entered into, the property having been requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1939. Based on these documents, the petitioners claim to have a lawful title to the lands in question tracing origin to the document of 25th February, 1899.

2. There have been disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and the Fifth Respondent on the other. It appears that in or about 1990, the adjoining plot of land, Survey No. 260 was allotted by the State Government to a trust known as Param Poojya Swami Gagangiri Maharaj Ashram Charitable Trust for the purposes of cultivating vegetables, fruits and plants. The Fifth Respondent claims to be the Managing Trustee of the said Trust. Complaints were filed by the petitioners against the Fifth Respondent on the ground that he was, inter alia, obstructing the access of the petitioners. One such complaint which was made against the Fifth Respondent on 4th March, 1993 has been annexed to the Writ Petition. On 27th March, 1993, the petitioners once again wrote to the Tahsildar complaining of the fact that the Fifth Respondent had forged a 7 × 12 extract in respect of the property in which his name was shown as Kul. The dispute between the petitioners and the Fifth Respondent is reflected in the complaints dated 5th June, 1993, 27th April, 1994 and 17th August, 1995 addressed by the petitioners to the inspector of Police of the Malavani Police Station.

3. On 20th October, 1995, an order was passed by the Tahsildar of which an intimation was furnished to the Fifth Respondent noting that on a visit at the site on 9th October, 1995, no cultivation was found on the lands. In the circumstances, the application made by the Fifth Respondent for registering his name in the record of rights as a tenant was not accepted. The claim of the Fifth Respondent in respect of the alleged tenancy was thus rejected by the Tahsildar by the order dated 20th October, 1995. Thereafter on 4th April, 1996, the District Collector of Mumbai Suburban District addressed a letter to the Fifth Respondent recording that Survey No. 260 which was government land was surrounded by lands bearing Survey Nos. 267, 268 and other Survey numbers belonging to private parties. The Fifth Respondent was stated therein to have obstructed the access used by the private landlords which was through the land bearing Survey No. 260. Consequently, the Fifth Respondent was directed to remove the source of obstruction failing which it was stated that the Government would have to do so. In the said letter, the District Collector proceeded on the basis that the land bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268 belonged to private parties.

4. Against the order which was passed by the Tahsildar, rejecting his claim of tenancy, the Fifth Respondent filed an appeal. Together with the aforesaid appeal, the Fifth Respondent also sought to challenge a Mutation Entry bearing No. 1985 dated 22nd April, 1991 by which the name of Shri Kishor Premchand came to be entered as executor of the Will of Maneklal in respect of the property bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268. The appeal which had been filed by the Fifth Respondent came to be treated as a Revision Application under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. By the impugned order dated 4th November, 1996, the Sub Divisional Officer allowed the Revision Application bearing No. 13 of 1996 directed against the Mutation Entry carried out in respect of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268 while rejecting the companion appeal preferred by the Fifth Respondent rejecting his claim of tenancy. The Sub Divisional Officer has concluded that the lands bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268 were government lands and the name of Shri Premchand Roychand was wrongly entered in the revenue record in the year 1932. Moreover, the Sub Divisional Officer has concluded that the Mutation Entries which had held the field in favour of the Petitioners and their ancestors had been got effected by producing fake documents and by misleading the revenue authorities and that these should be cancelled. The Sub Divisional Officer has also directed the Tahsildar to obtain the possession of the lands and hand it over to the State Government. Insofar as the Fifth Respondent is concerned, while rejecting his request for recognising his alleged tenancy, the Sub Divisional Officer has observed that he can apply to the State Government for making an allotment of the lands in his favour, after possession thereof is handed over to the Government.

5. The present petition came to be admitted on 7th April, 1997 and at the interim stage, the Learned Single Judge directed that fencing which was in existence prior to the issuance of the order of the S.D.O would be permitted to be reconstructed by the petitioners at the site at their own cost and expenses. The interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge was carried in appeal. Before the Division Bench, a new plea was sought to be advanced on behalf of the Fifth Respondent viz., to the effect that he was now in adverse possession of the lands in question. This is recorded in the order dated 8th July, 1997 passed by the Division Bench. While disposing of the appeal against the interim order, the Division Bench directed that the DILR should demarcate the area of Survey No. 267 and 268 and that thereafter the petitioners would be permitted to erect the fencing in accordance with the demarcation made by the DILR. The learned Counsel have informed the Court that a demarcation was accordingly carried out and the fencing was also put up pursuant to the order of the Division Bench. An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings in which the title of the petitioners is sought to be questioned.

6. The order which has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer has been sought to be impugned, inter alia, on the ground that it was passed in breach of the basic principles of natural justice since the petitioners were not even served with a copy of the papers in Appeal/Revision filed by the Fifth Respondent and that an adequate opportunity was not granted to the petitioners to produce all the relevant records upon which they rely in support of their claim in respect of Survey Nos. 267 and 268. On 8th October, 1996 and 12th October, 1996, the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners had made a grievance before the Sub-Divisional Officer to the effect that they were not even served with the relevant papers of the appeal on the basis of which the Sub-Divisional Officer was seized of the matter. It would also appear from a perusal of the records that a serious apprehension was expressed on behalf of the petitioners in regard to the independence of the Sub-Divisional Officer and an application for transfer of the pending appeal was sought to be moved before the Collector. It is not necessary to go into the correctness of the allegations which were sought to be levelled since I am of the view that in a matter of the present nature where the petitioners seek to found their claim on documents of a long standing tracing back to 1899, they should be given a proper opportunity to present their viewpoint before the competent revenue authority.

7. The principle of law is well settled, that entries in the revenue records are not dispositive or conclusive on questions of title. The revenue records create no title and are relevant only for fiscal purposes. Reference may be made in this regard to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, (1993) 4 SCC 403. The petitioners are hence at liberty to adopt such remedies as are open to them in law for asserting their claim to title.

8. There is, however, substance in the grievance which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the S.D.O has overstepped his jurisdiction, while deciding upon the question of a mutation of the revenue records, by issuing a direction to the effect that the lands should be taken possession of and should be handed over to the State Government. In a matter such as this, the State Government must necessarily observe due process of law and when a party is in settled position on the basis of a claim of some antiquity as in the present case, it would not be appropriate for the S.D.O to pass a direction of the kind which has been issued in the present case. In the circumstances, the present petition must succeed and the impugned order passed by the S.D.O is liable to be quashed. It is, however, clarified that no opinion has been expressed by the Court on the legitimacy of the claim to title made by the petitioners or for that matter in respect of the claim of the Government that the lands were Government lands in respect of which no title could have been passed in 1889 in favour of the Petitioners. It would be open to the First Respondent, to adopt any proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for correcting the revenue records. The petitioners should be allowed an opportunity of being heard in any such proceeding and of placing all relevant documentary material on which they seek to rely, on the record. Should the Government adopt this course of action, the petitioners would be at liberty to adopt such remedies as are open to them in law including the remedies which they may have for the purposes of asserting their claim to title.

9. In the circumstances, subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There shall be, in the circumstances, no order as to costs.

Order accordingly.