1) Village form No. 7/12 contains land record information including the Record of Rights and crop details for villages in Maharashtra. 2) The document discusses various aspects of land ownership, transfer, and inheritance under the Rayatwari system and different types of land occupancy. 3) It provides examples of common land transaction cases and discusses the appropriate decisions regarding mutation entries based on acts like the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, and Bombay Tenancy Act.

1. Shekhar Gaikwad

2. To make it easy for the general public to
understand land records & the changes
there in, land records are maintained in
a uniform pattern & with minimum paper
work, in village forms No.1 to 21
throughout Maharashtra. Village form No.7
is the Record of Rights while form No 12
Rights,
No.12
contains
crop
related
information.
Village form No.7/12 is an extract
combining both Record of Rights & crop
related information.

3. Rayatwari System of Land Ownership - Land
Owner d l di
O
deals directly with th G t
tl
ith the Govt.
Lands that do not belong to any person roads, rivers, streams, etc.
roads rivers streams etc are all Govt
Govt.
property
Land Occupancy – Transferable & Heritable
p
y
Land revenue is paramount charge on land
Limited rights in land
g
Types of occupancy - a) Occupancy Class - 1
b) Occupancy Class - 2
c) G t l s
Govt. leasee

4. Regd. Sale deed.
Case --- Sanjay
Deepak
Dt. 02.08.1998
Mutation Entry No. 40 Certified on Dt. 20.11.1998
No
Dt 20 11 1998
Q. - Who is the land owner on Dt. 15.09.1998

5. 1) 7/12 is not undisputed proof of land ownership.
2) 7/12 is valid, until it is declared void.
3) Revenue officer is an official dealing only with
recording of rights.

6. Sec. 150 (2) is the most important sec. of M.L.R.C. When
( )
p
any change is to be made in the Record of Rights it is
very important to give all concerned and interested
parties a notice & an opportunity to be heard.
Doubtful
M.E.
Every M.E.
Entry
Disputed

7. Possession of land must follow ownership of land,
except in case of tenants.
Ownership
Possession
Has possession
Therefore
is the owner

8. Vijay made a registered sale deed in favour of Ajay but
later he made an allegation that Ajay had deceived
him.
him
As per sec. 91 & 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, When there
is written evidence available in form of registered deed, oral
evidence does not have value.
Many times transaction may not be complete but it is
mentioned as complete in the sale deed. While recording
ME,
ME Revenue officer should not consider private / oral
complaints.

9. Maruti made a registered sale deed
in favour of Sitaram & none of the
Acts was breached .....
This is a regular legal transaction. It
is presumed that there is no violation
p
of any act.

10. Anup made an unregistered sale deed on a simple stamp
paper in favour of Sanjay. Sanjay then applied for Mutation
Entry in his name.
As per sec. 17 of Indian Registration Act,any
transaction of more than Rs.100 value of land
must b
t be registered. It i
i t
d
is not possible th t
t
ibl
that
the land value is less than Rs.100 anywhere,
g
hence land transaction must be registered.

11. Kishor made registered sale deed in favour of Ashok on
8.5.95. Again Kishor made a Agreement of sale in favour of
Nitin on 10.6.95 of the same land.
Once the entire land is sold by the land
owner, he can not make further transaction of
the same land. Kishor ceased to be the land
owner on the day he made registered Sale deed
in favour of Ashok. The later document made on
10.6.95 does not have any value as far as
mutation is concerned.

12. Manoj made a registered Sale deed in favour of Sudhakar
on 1.4.98 but afterwards it was revealed that on 3.4.96
Manoj had made registered agreement. of sale in favour of
Rambhau.
Rambhau
In this case ME must be made in favour of the
registered sale deed. As per sec. 53 A of the
Transfer of Property Act, if a registered
Agreement of sale with possession is made
then the rights to keep possession are created
but not ownership rights.

13. Ashok sold his land to Vijay but the area sold was more
than h t he
th what h owned.
d
As per Transfer Of Property Act
Act, the entire
area of Ashok is sold by him & bought by
Vijay. So the ME may be taken to the extent of
Ashok’s area of land as per 7/12 extract.

14. Dinkar sold 40 R. out of 80 R owned by him, to Vinayak on
2.9.97 by registered sale deed. Later he sold 50 R on
5.12.97
5 12 97 to Sanjay
Sanjay.
This is another example of selling more land
than that is owned. Even if more area is
mentioned in the sale deed, The ME to the
extent of 40 R f Di k
t t f
R.of Dinkar and 40 R only should
d
l
h ld
be taken to record of rights of sanjay ,the
p
later purchaser.

15. Atul sold to Bipin on 10.2.97 all the land owned by him by
registered Sale deed. When notice was served on parties,
it was f
found th t Bi i h d di d on 20 2 97 b f
d that Bipin had died
20.2.97 before mutation
t ti
in record of rights
Right of ownership is created by the sale
deed. It does not become void, even if the
person executing it h
ti
has di d l t
died later on. Th
The
decision on the ME should be taken considering
p
g
the position on the date of registration.

16. Sudhir bought 2 Hect. out of 4 Hect. owned by Ramu on
3.8.95. But Ramu died on 9.9.95 before the ME could be
taken.
Rights are based on the deed executed by a
person. Just because the buyer is dead does
not mean that his rights are over.

17. 7/12 extract shows the names of Madhavrao & 2 other
people, but it does not show the share of each person.
Madhavrao sold 40 R. out of 2 Hec. joint holding to
Sitaram.
As per sec. 44 of Transfer of Property Act, If
the co-holders, individually or jointly sell
their share of land, then the seller is
replaced by the buyer.

18. Dilip sold land to Vishal through registered sale deed but
the land is on Pradeep’s name as Joint family holder.
As per sec. 44 of Transfer of Property Act, If
the co-holders, individually or jointly sell
co holders,
their share of land, then the seller is
replaced by the buyer. Revenue officer is one
who records the rights of persons, he can not
decide the extent of the shares in land.

19. Prabhakar bought land from Gulabrao through registered
sale deed. Immediately afterwards Prabhakar died.
In this case the ME should be certified
because there in no hindrance to the right of
a purchaser who dies after executing a legal
sale deed
deed.

20. On 3.8.95, Sudhir bought 2 Hec. Land out of 4 Hec. Owned
by Ramu. Before the ME could be taken, Ramu died on
9.9.95.
9 9 95
g
g
Rights are created on the basis on regd.
Documents. Even if a person executing sale
deed dies, it does not affect his rights over
land. Therefore Sudhir would get 2 ha and
heirship entry of ramu would be taken to 2 ha
land

21. Vijayendra, an unmarried Hindu , died on 5.2.97
As per Hindu Succession Act, the names of his
legal heirs must be entered in the record of
rights.
rights First the names of class 1 heirs must
class-1
be entered. If no class-1 heir is There, the
class-2 heirs will be entered and so on. In
case of other religions, the names of
legal
heirs will be entered as per personal law or
Indian Succession Act.
di
i

22. Sambhaji died on 4.3.95. He had not legal heirs of ClassI,II,III,IV as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. But a person
having the same surname as Sambhaji’s claimed to be his
Sambhaji s
legal heir.
It is possible that a person who does not even
stay in the village or is not remotely related
to Sambhaji make such a claim. The talathi
should not depend on such a claim, he should
examined all d
i d ll documents, give necessary notices
t
i
ti
to all known relatives & only then take the
y
entry.

23. Subhash died on 2.5.94. There was no agricultural land in
his name but he had a house in the Village site area.
In this case the person owns only a house. The
names of his legal heirs will be recorded in
the City Survey Records or the Gram Panchayat
p
y
g
Property Register.

24. Dattatraya died on 1.3.93. His name was as joint family
manager on 7/12 extract.
In such cases the ME regarding the legal heirs
should be done in such a way that none of the
legal heirs are excluded. The names of all the
legal heirs of all brothers should be entered
in the Record of Rights

25. Ramesh, Chairman of Madhukunja Co-op. Hsg. society on
behalf of the society., bought land from Maruti through
sale deed This land is in the residential zone of Municipal
deed.
Corporation.
It is necessary to see whether provisions of
Urban Land Ceiling Act Are followed or Not and
whether notification under Sec. 63 of Tenancy
Act is issued for Municipal area.

26. Ramesh, Chairman of Madhukunja Co-op. Hsg. society on
behalf of the society, bought land from Maruti through
sale deed This land is in the agricultural zone of Municipal
deed.
Corporation.
In this case, the ME must be certified if the
land is in municipal area & Govt. has notified
such lands for industrial or non agricultural
purpose under tenancy act.

27. Ramesh, Chairman of Madhukunja Co-op. Hsg. society on
behalf of the society, bought land from Maruti through sale
deed.
deed This land is in the Rural area of Municipal
Corporation.
Unless a society is registered, it can not be
said to be in existence. In this case Ramesh
must be an agriculturist to fulfill condition
of Bombay Tenancy Act-section 63.

28. Industrialist Amin Chandra bought land in industrial zone,
despite not being an agriculturist
He has
bought land for starting an industry.
As
A per sec. 63 (1)(A) f B b
(1)(A)of Bombay T
Tenancy A t non
Act
agriculturist can buy up to 10 Hec. of land
for bonafide industrial use in industrial zone
of Maharashtra.But for more than 10 ha area he
should take prior permission of Development
Commissioner under sec. 63.

29. Satyajit bought 2 R. land out of 2 Hec. 50 R. from Gat No.
140 belonging to Govind. The Prevention of Fragmentation
& Consolidation of Holdings Act is in force in the village.
This transaction violates the provision of the
P.F.C.H. Act so the ME must be rejected. In
order to prevent similar such transaction &
transaction,
entry must be taking in the other rights
column.
As per P.F.C.H. Act, minimum area for each
village has been notified & land can not be
fragmented into less than that area.

30. On 30.4.2011 Sanjay bought land from Raju, who is powery
p
pp
of-attorney holder of Dilip Kumar. When he approached
village Talathi for mutation and notices were issued ,it was
found that Dilipkumat, the owner had died in 2009.
The power-of-attorney becomes defunct on the
day th l d owner di
d
the land
dies.

31. Anthony
bought
some
land
from
Moreshwarin
Maharashtra. He submitted a 7/12 extract from Kerala to
show that he is farmer.
In such a case even if there is no dispute,
the
evidence
submitted
is
verified
from
district
di t i t administration and th
d i i t ti
d then d i i
decision on
mutation is taken.