JUDGMENT Rohit B. Deo, J. - Heard Shri Anand Jaiswal, the learned senior counsel for petitioner, Shri Nandesh Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent 6 and Shri C.A. Lokhande, the learned AGP for respondent 1 to 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent. 3. The petitioner is an agriculturist who contends that in the year 2005 he executed a nominal saledeed qua 10 R agricultural land in favour of late Sudhakar Ganpat Bawane father of respondents 6 and 7 as security for a hand loan. 4. The petitioner contends that the loan was repaid, and before Sudhakar Bawane could execute the deed of reconveyance, he expired in the year 2007. 5. The petitioner contends that taking undue advantage of the nominal saledeed, the respondents 6 and 7 applied for mutation of their names as owners of the said 10 R portion in the revenue record, and the respondent 5 Talathi vide mutation entry 1205 recorded the names of respondents 6 and 7 in the revenue record and sought the approval of respondent 4 Circle Officer. 6. The petitioner objected to the entry. The objection is predicated on the assertion that the saledeed was a nominal document of security and no right or interest in land was intended to be transferred. It is not in dispute that the Circle Officer suspended the mutation entry by order dated 16.3.2015 albeit for reasons other than the reasons spelt out in the objection. The Circle Officer held that the saledeed is hit by the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1947 ("Act" for short). 7. Respondents 6 and 7 preferred an appeal before the respondent 3 Sub Divisional Officer who by order dated 6.7.2015 confirmed the view of the Circle Officer. Respondents 6 and 7 preferred an appeal before the respondent 2 Additional Collector, Yavatmal which is allowed by order dated 27.4.2016. The Additional Collector held that in view of the provisions of section 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLR Code"), it is mandatory for the revenue officer to effect mutation in the revenue record if the mutation is sought on the basis of a registered document. The petitioner preferred a revision under section 257 of the MLR Code which is rejected by the respondent 1 Divisional Commissioner by order dated 23.5.2016. 8. The petitioner preferred a revision under section 257 of the MLR Code which is rejected by the respondent 1 Divisional Commissioner by order dated 23.5.2016. 8. The revisional authority concurred with the view of the Additional Collector that unless the saledeed is declared illegal by the competent Court, the revenue officer is obligated to effect the mutation entry on the basis of such registered saledeed. 9. Being aggrieved by the view taken by the Additional Collector in appeal and the Divisional Commissioner in revision, the petitioner is invoking writ jurisdiction. 10. Shri Anand Jaiswal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner took me through the provisions of the Act extensively to buttress the submission that the saledeed is in contravention of the provisions of section 7 and is void. 11. Shri Anand Jaiswal, the learned senior counsel invited my attention to sections 7 and 9 of the Act which read thus: 7. Transfer and lease of fragments. (1) No person shall transfer any fragment in respect of which a notice has been given under subsection (2) of section (6) [except to the owner of] a contiguous survey number or recognised subdivision of a survey number: [Provided that the holder of such fragment may mortgage or transfer it to the State Government or a land mortgage bank or any other cooperative society as security for any loan advanced to him by the State Government or such bank or society, as the case may be.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in [any law for the time being in force or in any instrument or agreement], no such fragment shall be leased to any person other than a person cultivating any land which is contiguous to the fragment. 9. Penalty for transfer or partition contrary to provisions of Act. (1) The transfer or partition of any land contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be void. (2) The owner of any land so transferred or partitioned shall be liable to pay such fine not exceeding Rs. 9. Penalty for transfer or partition contrary to provisions of Act. (1) The transfer or partition of any land contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be void. (2) The owner of any land so transferred or partitioned shall be liable to pay such fine not exceeding Rs. 250 as the Collector may, subject to the general orders of the [State] Government, direct [Such fine shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.] [(3) Any person unauthorizedly occupying, or wrongfully in possession of, any land the transfer or partition of which, either by the act of parties or by the operation of law, is void under the provisions of this Act, may be summarily evicted by the Collector.] 12. In rebuttal, Shri Nandesh Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent 6 would submit that the prohibition envisaged under section 7 of the Act is attracted only if notice is given under subsection(2) of section 6, and more importantly if the transfer is to the owner of a contiguous survey number or recognized sub division of a survey number, there is no prohibition to transfer a fragment. Shri Nandesh Deshpande, the learned counsel would submit that the respondents 6 and 7 are the owners of contiguous survey number / land and the saledeed is therefore not hit by provisions of section 7 of the Act. This submission is without prejudice to the contention that since mandatory conditions of section 6(2) are not fulfilled, section 7 of the Act does not come into play. 13. Both the learned counsels Shri Anand Jaiswal and Shri Nandesh Deshpande fairly state that the authorities have not considered the question of applicability of section 7 of the Act in the context of the submission of respondents 6 and 7 that the conditions envisaged under section 6 of the Act are not fulfilled and in any event respondents 6 and 7 are owners of contiguous survey number / land. In view of this admitted position, it would not be necessary to record any decisive finding on the interesting question of law raised by Shri Anand Jaiswal, the learned senior counsel, which is, that the revenue authorities are entitled to, and indeed shall be obligated to refuse mutation if the mutation is applied for on the basis of a saledeed which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore void, although, it is noticed that a catena of decisions have indeed taken a view that a void transfer can not be the basis of mutation. Illustratively, the following observations of the Division Bench in State of Jharkhand and Ors ..vs.. Arjun Das , (2004) 3 BLJR 1998 JCR 535 Jhr which are authored by justice M. Eqbal (as his Lordship was then) may be noted. 21. Coming back to the instant case, as noticed above, mutation was refused by the Circle Officer on the ground that the petitioner purchased the land from a member of Scheduled Tribe in violation of the provisions of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. If that is so, transfer of land by a member of Scheduled Tribe in favour of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of the Act is itself illegal, null and void and the purchaser has not acquired right, title and interest over the said land. In such circumstances even if the purchaser came in possession of the tribal land by virtue of transfer by a member of Scheduled Tribes in contravention of the provisions of C.N.T. Act, possession of such transferee cannot be recognized by any Court of law. The Circle Officer can, therefore, refuse to enter the name of the purchaser by deleting the name of the tribal from the revenue records or from registerII maintained by the office of the Circle Officer. 22. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case, we have not hesitation in holding that the learned Single Judge is not correct in law in holding that even if the petitioner claims mutation on the basis of transfer made by a member of Scheduled Tribe in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Circle Officer has not authority to see the right or title of the parties. 14. 14. In the light of the observation supra, the order dated 27.4.2016 of the Additional Collector and order dated1.6.2017 of the Divisional Commissioner are quashed and set aside. 15. The matter is remitted to the Additional Collector, Yavatmal for fresh decision, in accordance with law. 16. The Additional Collector, Yavatmal shall decide every contention raised in the petition and in rebuttal including the contention of the respondents 6 and 7 that the provisions of section 7 of the Act are not attracted. Needless to say the parties shall be permitted to adduce such oral and documentary evidence as they may deem fit and shall be heard before passing the final order, which shall be passed within six months. 17. Rule is made absolute in the afore stated terms.