Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur & Others – Appellant
Versus
Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2658 of 2018
Decided On : 10-02-2021
Mutation Entry - Challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1996 - [Section 257, Section 250, Section 247, Section 258] - The court considered the challenge to mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010 pertaining to Gat No.54 admeasuring 08 Hectares 87 Ares of village Khairgavan, Tal. Yeola, Dist. Nashik. The petitioners consistently argued that the appeal filed by the respondents was beyond the statutory period of limitation and not maintainable as it was not accompanied by a formal application for seeking condonation of delay. The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned, rendering the orders passed by the authorities without jurisdiction and nullity. The court set aside all orders related to the challenge to mutation entry No.508.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the judgment and order dismissing their Revision Application against mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010 pertaining to Gat No.54. The mutation entry was certified in the names of the petitioners, but legal heirs of deceased brothers filed revenue proceedings to challenge it. The challenge culminated in the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 by the State of Maharashtra.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal filed by the respondents was beyond the statutory period of limitation and not maintainable as the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned. The court held that the orders passed by the authorities were without jurisdiction and nullity, and set them aside.
Issues: The issues included the challenge to mutation entry No.508, the delay in filing the appeal, and the jurisdiction of the authorities to entertain the appeal without condoning the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the consistent argument by the petitioners that the appeal filed by the respondents was beyond the statutory period of limitation and not maintainable as the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned. The court held that the authorities acted without jurisdiction in deciding the proceedings on merits without first condoning the delay, rendering the orders nullity.
Final Decision: The court set aside all orders related to the challenge to mutation entry No.508, including the order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Minister of Revenue, State of Maharashtra.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal issues and principles are as follows:
Jurisdiction and Validity of Proceedings: The proceedings initiated by the respondents to challenge the mutation entry were found to be without jurisdiction because they were filed beyond the statutory limitation period and without a formal application for condonation of delay. Orders passed without condonation are considered null and void, rendering subsequent orders based on such proceedings also invalid (!) (!) (!) .
Limitation and Condonation of Delay: The statutory period for filing appeals or challenges is limited (e.g., 60 days). If the challenge is filed beyond this period, it is necessary for the appellant to seek condonation of delay through a formal application. Without such an application and an order condoning the delay, the proceedings are barred by limitation and lack jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) .
Jurisdictional Error and Nullity: Orders passed by authorities without first condoning the delay are considered to be passed without jurisdiction. Such orders are nullities and can be challenged at any stage, including during execution or appeal proceedings (!) (!) .
Effect of Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements: The failure to file a formal application for condonation of delay, despite raising the issue consistently, results in the proceedings being invalid. Authorities are required to examine and pass an explicit order on condonation of delay before proceeding on merits (!) (!) .
Legal Principle of Jurisdictional Mandate: The legal framework mandates that authorities must follow procedural requirements strictly, including the condonation of delay, to have valid jurisdiction to decide on appeals or challenges. Orders passed in violation of these procedural mandates are void and can be set aside (!) .
Consequences of Procedural Violations: Orders passed in proceedings where jurisdiction was lacking due to procedural lapses are inherently void, and subsequent orders based on such proceedings are also invalid. This underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements for maintaining jurisdiction (!) .
In summary, the legal document emphasizes that in revenue and property disputes, procedural compliance—particularly regarding limitation periods and condonation of delay—is fundamental for the validity of orders. Orders passed without proper condonation are nullities, and authorities acting without jurisdiction in such circumstances are liable to have their decisions set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar along with Mr. Amogh Karandikar and Mr. Shubham Jawlekar, Advocates for the petitioners; Mr. Vaibhav Kadam, Advocate for respondent Nos.3, 8E, 9 and 10 and Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent Nos.11A to 11C.
2. By the present petition filed under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Minister for Revenue, State of Maharashtra in revision proceedings under the provisions of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1996, (for short “the MLR Code”), dismissing the Revision Application filed by petitioners in respect of mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010 pertaining to Gat No.54 admeasuring 08 Hectares 87 Ares of village Khairgavan, Tal. Yeola, Dist. Nashik. Mutation entry No.508 was certified on 17.10.2010 in the names of the petitioners i.e. four brothers namely, Balkrishna, Gopalkrishna, Vishwanath and Dattatraya. The fifth brother namely Ramkrishna had waived of his right/share in Gat No.54 in lieu of getting sole right in Gat No.59 following family partition. Therefore, after following due process of law as contemplated under the MLR Code, Prabhakar and Ramkrishna's name was not certified in the mutation entry. The legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna and Prabhakar however filed revenue proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yeola (for short “SDO”) i.e. appeal to challenge mutation entry No.508 in the year 2013. These proceedings culminated in the passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 by the State of Maharashtra in revisions proceedings against the petitioners.
3. To appreciate the lis between the parties it will be apposite to briefly refer to the relevant facts for consideration.
3.1. Ancestral land of Thakur family originally belonged to six brothers namely; Ramkrishna, Prabhakar, Dattatraya, Balkrishna, Gopalkrishna and Vishwanath, sons of Sadashiv Thakur. Legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur filed Civil Suit being RCS No.187 of 1985 for injunction and declaration of title to the ancestral land. This civil suit came to be dismissed after recording evidence by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on 08.09.2003. Being aggrieved the legal heirs of Ramkrishna filed appeal being Civil Appeal No.74 of 2003 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Niphad at Niphad. On 15.07.2008 all parties in the civil appeal entered into a compromise and consent terms were filed wherein entitlement to Gat No.59 was exclusively given to the legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur by the respondents i.e. other brothers therein.
3.2. Petitioners have asserted that prior to 1985 there was an oral partition of ancestral property between the brothers wherein Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur and Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur were not given any right, title and interest in Gat No.54, but in lieu thereof Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur was given the entire right, titile and interest in Gat No.59. Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur, the sixth brother, however, has maintained challenge to the mutation entry right from inception.
3.3. Sometime in the year 2008 petitioners filed application for mutation and recording their names in the revenue record in respect of Gat No.54. Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur and legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur i.e. respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 endorsed the said application by specifically giving their no objection to the recording of the names of the petitioners against Gat No.54.
3.4. In January 2010 statutory notice under the provisions of the MLR Code was issued to the parties and affixed at the Chavadi fixing the date of hearing on 20.01.2010 and calling for objections if any. Respondents recorded their "no objection" in writing for mutating the names of petitioners before the Tahsildar on 20.01.2010, 07.04.2010 and 23.10.2010.
3.5. In April 2010 the Tahsildar passed order under the provisions of Section 85 of the MLR Code afte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
