1. The power under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, to review orders passed by revenue or survey officers must be exercised within a reasonable time, which is determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order being reviewed. 2. An order passed under section 257 cannot be set aside merely because of a defective reasoning relating to the application of section 258, if it is also based on an examination of the merits of the disputed entries. 3. The Planning Authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, cannot abdicate its responsibility to decide an application for a commencement certificate by directing the applicant to obtain a "no objection" certificate from another department of the Government.

Headnote:
LAND REVENUE - Review of order - Delay in exercising power - Legality - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 257 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 43, 44, 45.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, claiming ownership of a piece of land, challenged the order passed under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, reviewing an earlier order that had restored the petitioners' name as the occupant of the land. The petitioners contended that the delay of two years in exercising the power under section 257 was unreasonable and that the order was passed on a wrong footing, misinterpreting section 258 of the Code. Additionally, the petitioners challenged the refusal of a commencement certificate for development of the land by the Planning Authority, arguing that it was contrary to law and that the deeming provision of section 45(5) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, should be applied.
Finding of the Court:

1. The delay of two years in exercising the power under section 257 was not unreasonable considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the earlier review order under section 258 was passed after a lapse of 17 years. 2. The order passed under section 257 was not patently illegal or without jurisdiction, despite the erroneous reasoning relating to the application of section 258, as it was also based on an examination of the merits of the disputed entries. 3. The Planning Authority's direction to the petitioners to obtain a "no objection" certificate from the State Government before granting a commencement certificate was contrary to law, as the Planning Authority was required to decide the petitioners' application itself and could not abdicate its responsibility by waiting for a clearance from the State Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in exercising the power under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, was unreasonable and rendered the order passed thereunder illegal. 2. Whether the order passed under section 257 was patently illegal or without jurisdiction due to misinterpretation of section 258 of the Code. 3. Whether the Planning Authority's refusal to grant a commencement certificate for development of the land was contrary to law and whether the deeming provision of section 45(5) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, should be applied.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The reasonableness of the delay in exercising the power under section 257 must be judged on the facts of each case and in light of the nature of the order being reviewed. In the present case, the delay of two years was not unreasonable considering the fact that the earlier review order under section 258 was passed after a lapse of 17 years. 2. An order passed under section 257 cannot be set aside merely because of a defective reasoning relating to the application of section 258, if it is also based on an examination of the merits of the disputed entries. 3. The Planning Authority cannot abdicate its responsibility to decide an application for a commencement certificate by directing the applicant to obtain a "no objection" certificate from another department of the Government. The Planning Authority must apply its mind to the application and decide whether to grant permission or not, based on the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
Final Decision: 1. The order passed under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, was upheld as it was not unreasonable or patently illegal. 2. The Planning Authority's decisions refusing to grant a commencement certificate were set aside, and the Planning Authority was directed to deal with the petitioners' application in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT - SUJATA MANOHAR, J.:---The subject matter of this writ petition is land bearing C.T.S. No.24 in Village Paspauli of Kurla Taluka in the Bombay Suburban District. The 1st petitioner is the present owner of this property. The 2nd petitioner is a partner of the 1st petitioner firm. The original 3rd petitioner was claiming to be the previous owner of this property. The 3rd petitioner died before the hearing of this petition and his name has now been deleted. The land which is the subject matter of this petition was originally Khoti land and it formed part of Khoti Survey No.63. After the abolition of Khoti this piece of land was renumbered during a survey which was carried out in that village in the year 1957. The said land was entered in the revenue records as Gaothan land admeasuring 1 acre and 34 gunthas. The original third petitioner claimed to be in occupation of this land since the year 1949. As an occupant of gaothan land he claimed to be the holder of this land.

2. By an order dated 31st August, 1967 passed by Enquiry Officer No. VII City Survey, Bombay Suburban District, Bombay, the state of Maharashtra was declared as holder of the said land and the original 3rd petitioner was declared as an encroacher on Government Land. This order was passed after an enquiry at which the original 3rd petitioner was present and his statement was recorded in evidence. As a result of the order of 31st August, 1967 the record of rights was amended to show the State of Maharashtra as the holder of the said land and the name of the original 3rd petitioner remained in occupation of the said land and he seems to have entered into subsequent dealings in respect of this land. As a result petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 today claim to be the owners of the said land. It seems that they acquired an interest is this land around 1984 or a little prior to it.

3. In the year 1984 the order of 31st August, 1967 was sought to be reviewed by the revenue authorities. It seems that the District Inspector of Land records cum City Survey Officer No.1, Bombay Suburban District Bombay by his letter dated 9th April, 1984 moved the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District for review of the order of 31-8-1967 stating that on perusal of survey sheets in respects of the said land (C.T.S. No. 24 of Paspauli village) it was seen that C.T.S. No. 24 of Paspauli fell in the category of gaothan land. He said that in view of the submissions of the original 3rd petitioner recorded on 7th August, 1967 in the previous enquiry the name of the original 3rd petitioner should be entered in the revenue record as the holder of the said land. In response to this letter, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District by his letter dated 4th May, 1984 stated that a proper enquiry was not conducted before passing the order of 31st August, 1967. He accorded his sanction under section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1956 to review the order of 31st August, 1967.

4. Thereupon the District Inspector of Land Records cum City Survey Officer, Bombay Suburban/District, Bombay passed his order dated 25th August, 1984 reviewing the earlier order of 31st August, 1967. He directed that the name of the original 3rd petitioner should be entered in the record of rights as the holder of Gaothan C.T.S. No. 24 after deleting the name of the State of Maharashtra.

5. After the order of 28th August, 1984 the petitioner applied for permission to develop the land under section 22 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. This application was made by the present petitioners 1 and 2 as Constituted attornies of the original petitioner No. 3. They also applied to the Municipal Corporation for an I.O.D. which was granted on 18-10-1985. The petitioners however, were not granted a commencement certificate of construction work under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

6. The petitioners have been informed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, which is th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1988 Supreme(Bom) 165

Login now and unlock premium legal research