JUDGMENT A. P. BHANGALE, J. :- 1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of respective counsel. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. 3. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18th May, 2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur in Revenue Case No. 22/RTS-64/2003-2004 of Mouza Kortimakta, Tahsil Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur, and further sought for quashing and setting aside the order dated 6-2-2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Chandrapur in R. A. No. 36/RTS-64/2004-2005 Mouza Kortimakta, Tahsil Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that land S. No. 10 admeasuring 1.80 hectares (about 4.45 acres) situated at village Kortimakta, Tah-Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur has been reserved and was in use for burial and cremation ground by the villagers since last more than 50 years. The deceased father of respondent No. 3, being landless, was allotted a piece of land S. No. 41 (admeasuring 1. 14 Hectares) by the Government. Respondent No.3 took disadvantage of proximity of said land with land S. No. 10 reserved for cremation and burial ground and encroached upon it. On 4-10-2000 villages Panchayat Kortimakta had passed a Resolution, requesting the State to remove the encroachment from land S. No. 10. Although copy of Resolution was sent to Tahsildar, Ballarpur, no action was taken by the State. As many as 165 members of Gram Sabha met and resolved unanimously on 26-11-2004 that the said encroachment by respondent No.3• from S. No. 10 be vacated with a request to Tahsildar, Ballarpur. 5. Respondent No.3, in the meantime, moved an application to get the entry "masanvat" of burial and cremation ground deleted from the revenue record of Land S. No. 10. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur, on the basis of report of Tahsildar, Ballarpur, directed deletion of the entry "Masanvat" (cremation ground) and to insert names of legal heirs of Kashinath Sakharam Thamke in V.F. 7 x 12 record, land S. No. 10 area 1 H 80R, Villagers of Kortimakta made representation to the Addl. Collector, Chandrapur against the order passed by S.D.O. Chandrapur. But he rejected the representation by order dated 6-2-2006 on the ground that Revision as well as Appeal was not tenable. Collector, Chandrapur against the order passed by S.D.O. Chandrapur. But he rejected the representation by order dated 6-2-2006 on the ground that Revision as well as Appeal was not tenable. The villagers had made efforts through the local MLA and also approached the concerned authority for removal of encroachment, but the Authority remained inactive to protect the public property from being converted into private property, thus, affecting the rights of petitioners, by deleting the entry of burial and cremation ground, the respondent No. 1 has allotted the land S. No. 10 to respondent No.3. The impugned order passed SDO without sanction of the Collector under section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (in short "the Code") was illegal and without jurisdiction as SDO; also ignored section 38 of the Code by describing the respondent No.3 as a lessee. The report of Tahsildar made behind the back of villagers, could not have been acted upon to delete the entry "masanvat" as larger interest of society/public was ignored while respondent No. 1 favoured private interest of respondent No. 3 while passing impugned order. 6. Respondent No.1-SDO in the affidavit-in-reply admitted that the land S. No. 10 admeasuring 4.45 acres (old S.No. 1/2) was never allotted to the father of respondent No.3 for agricultural purposes. However, the Revenue record shows that respondent No. 3 made encroachment over the said land for agricultural purposes. No certificate is available in the revenue record to show that S. No. 1/2 (old) admeasuring 4.50 acres was allotted to deceased father of respondent No.3. 7. According to respondent No.1, late father of respondent No.3, was a landless person and was allotted S. No. 1/1 D, area 3.50 acres assessed at Rs. 3.00 for agricultural purposes in Revenue Case No. 28/5/1957-58 of village Kortimakta pursuant to the order by then Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur. Accordingly, Mutation Entry No. 101 dated 29-5-1961 was made and since then allottee was in possession of the allotted land. Thus, it is S. No. 41 old S. No. 1/ID admeasuring 4.45 acres recorded as cremation/burial ground "Masanvat". It is further contended in affidavit of respondent NO.1 that S. No. 10 (old Survey No. 1/2) admeasuring 4.45 acres has been recorded as burial ground and crematorium in revenue record i.e. Nistar Patrak P.Il Panch sala khasra for the years 1975-76 and in V.F. VII-XII extracts of village Kortimakta. It is further contended in affidavit of respondent NO.1 that S. No. 10 (old Survey No. 1/2) admeasuring 4.45 acres has been recorded as burial ground and crematorium in revenue record i.e. Nistar Patrak P.Il Panch sala khasra for the years 1975-76 and in V.F. VII-XII extracts of village Kortimakta. The affidavit-in-reply by respondent No. 1 avers that respondent No. 3 applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur on 17-1-2002 for mutation of record of S. No.1 0 area 1. H 80R in his name by producing interpolated and distorted copy of original certificate of allotment showing as if it is S. No.1 0 (new) area 4.50 acres while original certificate of allotment was in respect of land S. No. 1/1 D for area 3.50 acres. The Talathi concerned took entry of said allotment certificate produced by respondent No. 3 but put the remarks in mutation register that the proposal to delete the entry of "marghat" (burial and cremation ground) be submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur through Tahsildar of Ballarpur. The Talathi and Circle Officer had not verified the document produced by respondent No.3 with the original certificate. Under these circumstances, it appears Tahsildar Ballarpur forwarded proposal about which the Gram Panchayat, Kortimakta passed resolution dated 3-5-2004 to the effect that it had no objection to delete the entry "masanvat" (burial and cremation ground) from the rey~nue record of land S. No.10 which led to the impugned order dated 18-52004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, respondent No. 1 appears to have realised that land S. No. 10 (old S. No. 1/2 admeasuring 4.45 acres) was never allotted to Kashinath Sakharam - father of respondent No. 3 and the impugned order dated 18-5-2004 will have to be rectified. 8. Respondent No. 3 in his reply-affidavit contended that the petition suffers from delay/laches. On merits, it is contended that late father of respondent No.3 was authorised to use the land S. No. 1/2-C (old) (New S. No. 10) admeasuring 4.50 acres (1H 80R). According to the respondent No.3, the land was incorrectly recorded as cremation ground in the revenue record and he had therefore, applied for correction of wrong entry for which the Gram Panchayat, KortJmakta consented. The respondent No.3 also contended that land S. No.8 was reserved for cremation ground. Respondent No.3 also alleged ill motive for the petitioners to grab the land. The respondent No.3 also contended that land S. No.8 was reserved for cremation ground. Respondent No.3 also alleged ill motive for the petitioners to grab the land. Further, according to respondent No.3, the petition is false and amounts to abuse of process of law. The respondent No.3, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. The petitioners by their rejoinder C.A. No. 7823/2007 prayed for preliminary inquiry into the alleged offences by the respondent No.3 contending that false document was produced by respondent No. 3 to get the entry "masanval" deleted from the Revenue record for land S. No. 10. 10. We have considered all these contentions in the light of submissions at the Bar. We do not find any blameworthy lethargy or inaction on the part of petitioners to disallow the petition on the technical ground of delay/laches. 11. It appears prima facie clear that the land S. No. 10 area 4.45 acres situated at village Kortimakta Tal. Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur is a Government land which was reserved for burial and cremation ground. The land allotted to late Kashinath Sakharam Thamke (father of respondent No.3) is different and adjacent to the said land S. No. 10. There is reason to believe that respondent No. 3 had encroached over land S. No. 10 and had applied for deletion of entry "masamval" in the revenue record of the same and succeeded before the Sub Divisional Officer who passed impugned order dated 18-5-2004. While villagers had challenged it by representation before the Additional Collector, Chandrapur, by impugned order dated 6-2-2006 he rejected it 0n the vague premise that neither appeal nor revision is maintainable. Thus left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy, petitioners had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for to quash and set aside the above impugned orders. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the disputed land is under cultivation of the respondent No.3 since 1956-57. It is also contended that Reb'1llar Civil Suit No. 191/2008 has been instituted in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Chandrapur for declaration, injunction and adverse possession. The petitioners have been imp leaded as party-defendants in that suit. The counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that suit is required to be decided on merits by the trial Court without being influenced by order which may be passed by us. 13. Dn., Chandrapur for declaration, injunction and adverse possession. The petitioners have been imp leaded as party-defendants in that suit. The counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that suit is required to be decided on merits by the trial Court without being influenced by order which may be passed by us. 13. Petitioners do not dispute that the pending suit will have to be heard and decided on merits but emphasised that the said suit has been filed during pendency of this petition and, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners may be a ploy to prolong litigation for an indefinite duration between the parties to deprive the members of public from user of cremation and burial ground at village Kortimakta. 14. We are aware that respondent No. 3 is claiming possession and cultivation in respect of land S. No. 10 (disputed land) and we do not express our opinion on merits of Civil Suit pending between the parties as it will be decided on its own merits and according to law, on the basis of evidence led by the parties/persons' interested. 15. We are also aware that the question of title in respect of the disputed property cannot be determined under writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, when it is clear that the impugned orders were inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under the Code, their validity can be considered by this Court under the writ jurisdiction. Section 22 of the Code in dictate that the land reserved for burial or cremation ground shall not be used otherwise without the sanction of the Collector. Therefore, Sub-Divisional Officer had no power without sanction of the Collector to pass the impugned order dated 18-5-2004 as also the Additional Collector who erred in passing a cryptic and vague impugned order dated 6-2-2006, holding that neither appeal nor Revision is tenable. Both the impugned orders were contrary to law and were absolutely without merits as they were passed without hearing the persons interested in the public user of disputed land. 16. It must be borne in mind that the record of rights maintained as such for revenue purposes does not create or extinguish title. However, it carries a presumption in view of section 157 of the Code. 16. It must be borne in mind that the record of rights maintained as such for revenue purposes does not create or extinguish title. However, it carries a presumption in view of section 157 of the Code. Thus, entry in the record of rights and a certified entry in the register of mutations shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or new entry is lawfully substituted there for. Such presumption is rebut-table by the person interested or party not accepting the mutation entry. The Revenue authorities are, therefore, requested to observe due care and precaution while passing orders with due regard to the principles of natural justice. 17. Respondent-State of Maharashtra, realising that principles of natural justice were violated by not hearing the persons interested before impugned orders were passed is ready and willing to rectify itself by passing an order according to law after hearing the parties or persons interested in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Chapter XIII of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code empowers the Appellate or Superior Revenue Authority to entertain appeal or revision as the case may be or to call for and examine the record and to proceed in accordance with law in the matter to pass an appropriate order, respondents shall abide by their statutory function as stated above as contemplated under the law. 18. In the result, therefore, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned orders in public interest and equity. We direct the Revenue authorities concerned to proceed in accordance with law and with due regard to the principles of natural justice to take action against encroachment made over the land S.No. 10 which was earmarked and reserved for the public purpose and used as burial and cremation ground. Our observations made herein shall not affect the merits of the suit pending between the parties. 19. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.