Aakarphod Patrak/Hissa Form No. 4 – The Bombay High Court held that Aakarphod Patrak or Hissa Form No. 4 (based on the Gunakar Book) does not constitute a document of title. The entries in these forms merely reflect the sub-division of land revenue and do not confer ownership rights. (Para 24, 25, 31)

Mutation Entry No. 3342 – The Court noted that Mutation Entry No. 3342, which was based on Aakarphod Patrak No. 12 of 1968, was cancelled by the Tehsildar on 16 October 1972. The Court found that the Aakarphod Patrak had not been implemented in the revenue records, rendering it infructuous and meaningless. (Para 5, 7, 35)

Sub-Division of Land – The Court clarified that the process of sub-division of land, as reflected in Hissa Form No. 4 and Hissa Form No. 11, is merely a step in aid to give effect to the sub-division in the revenue records. It does not by itself create any title over the land. (Para 24, 29)

Presumption of Title – The Court held that mutation entries in revenue records create only a rebuttable presumption of title under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, Aakarphod Patrak or Hissa Form No. 4 does not have the same presumptive value. (Para 24, 29)

Conflict in Judgments – The Court addressed the conflicting views in Ramchandra Yeshwant Desai v. Krishna Sitaram Desai (2016) and Govindrao Shankarrao Reddy v. Rukminibai (2009). It held that the judgment in Ramchandra Yeshwant Desai was per incuriam as it did not consider the earlier judgments in Govindrao Shankarrao Reddy and Babu Gopala Gaware. (Para 27, 30)

Civil Suit for Title – The Court allowed the petitioners to pursue their claim of title in respect of land bearing Survey No. 78 (Old No. 279/1), Hissa Nos. 1/5, 1/6, and 1/12 in a civil suit. The revenue entries would be subject to the decree passed by the civil court. (Para 37)

Aakarphod Patrak/Hissa Form No. 4 does not confer title. (Para 24, 25, 31) Mutation Entry No. 3342 was cancelled, rendering Aakarphod Patrak infructuous. (Para 5, 7, 35) Conflict in judgments addressed; Ramchandra Yeshwant Desai is per incuriam. (Para 27, 30 ) Petitioners may pursue their claim in a civil suit. (Para 37)

Held:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that: Aakarphod Patrak No. 12 of 1968 or Hissa Form No. 4 does not constitute a document of title. The Aakarphod Patrak was rendered infructuous due to the cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 3342. The petitioners are not entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue records based on the Aakarphod Patrak. The petitioners may pursue their claim of title in a civil suit.

Major Acts:

1. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) – Sections 79, 88

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114

3. Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 – Sections 3, 135

Subjects:

• Aakarphod Patrak – Sub-division of land revenue

• Hissa Form No. 4 – Document reflecting land sub-division

• Mutation Entry – Record of changes in land ownership

• Infructuous – No longer effective or valid

• Rebuttable Presumption – Presumption that can be challenged

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – The petitioners challenged the order of the Minister (Revenue), which declared Aakarphod Patrak No. 12 of 1968 as infructuous and directed the sub-division of land bearing Survey No. 78/1A and 78/1B.

2. Remedy Sought – The petitioners sought to have their names mutated in the revenue records based on the Aakarphod Patrak No. 12 of 1968, which they claimed conferred title over certain shares of land.

3. Reason for Filing – The petitioners claimed that the Aakarphod Patrak created in 1968 had allotted shares in Survey No. 279 to Hari Balwant Naik, and they, as his successors, were entitled to those shares.

4. Previous Decisions – The Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR) had set aside the order of the District Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR), which had cancelled the Aakarphod Patrak. However, the Minister (Revenue) partly allowed the revision application, declaring the Aakarphod Patrak as infructuous.

Issues:

1. Whether Aakarphod Patrak No. 12 of 1968 or Hissa Form No. 4 constitutes a document of title?

2. Whether the cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 3342 rendered the Aakarphod Patrak infructuous?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue records based on the Aakarphod Patrak?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioners – Argued that the Aakarphod Patrak created in 1968 conferred title over the land shares allotted to Hari Balwant Naik. They relied on Ramchandra Yeshwant Desai to contend that the Aakarphod Patrak is a document of title. (Para 8, 9)

2. Respondents – Contended that the Aakarphod Patrak had not been implemented in the revenue records and was rendered meaningless after the cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 3342. They relied on Govindrao Shankarrao Reddy and Babu Gopala Gaware to argue that Hissa Form No. 4 does not confer title. (Para 10, 11)

Ratio:

1. Aakarphod Patrak or Hissa Form No. 4 is not a document of title and does not confer ownership rights. It merely reflects the sub-division of land revenue.

2. Mutation entries in revenue records create only a rebuttable presumption of title under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. The judgment in Ramchandra Yeshwant Desai is per incuriam as it did not consider the earlier judgments in Govindrao Shankarrao Reddy and Babu Gopala Gaware.