The main legal point established in the judgment is that the NOC of the Collector is not required for mutation entries in the Record of Rights under Form 'HH' or sanad in the form contained in Schedule H, and that Section 37A does not apply to properties transferred prior to 3rd March 2015. The Government Resolution dated 3rd August 2019 was found to be inapplicable to the mutation process.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner to challenge the letter/communication dated 16th February 2021 whereby Respondent No. 3, the City Survey Officer, Chembur (“CSO”) has refused to mutate the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the subject property, for want of an NOC from the Collector. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the insistence on the NOC of the Collector as a pre-condition for mutating its name in the revenue records.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts that are relevant for the present dispute are set out hereafter.

2.1 A grant of the subject property was made by the Mamlatadar, South Salsette, Taluka Bombay Suburban District, to one Basantrai Motiram, under Rule 43 of the then prevailing Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921 by way of a Form HH (Exhibit ‘A’ to the Petition) on 27th August 1946. It is the case of the Petitioner that the original owner, i.e. Basantrai Motiram, constructed seventeen flats and two garages on the subject property. The Petitioner is a society of flat purchasers of the above flats, registered on 2nd October 1967.

2.2 It is the further case of the Petitioner that the legal heirs of the original owner, Basantrai Motiram, conveyed the subject property to the Petitioner vide a Deed of Conveyance dated 22nd August 1968, duly registered. As the members of the Petitioner were desirous of redeveloping the existing building, which was in a dilapidated condition, steps in this regard were taken. In the course of the above steps, the Petitioner realised that its name was not reflected/mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject property and therefore the Petitioner filed an Application to the CSO for mutating its name in the revenue records of the subject property on 9th February 2021.

2.3 By the impugned letter/communication dated 16th February 2021, it was informed to the Petitioner that its Application could not be proceeded with further, without the NOC of the Collector. It is this letter/communication which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

3. Mr. Mone on behalf of the Petitioner has broadly made the following submissions:

(a) The grant being under Form HH, and there being no restriction on transferability of the subject property, there is no question of any permission/NOC of the Collector being required.

(b) Judgments of this Court have repeatedly laid down the legal position that no such NOC is required for effecting a mutation in the revenue records.

(c) The reliance placed on Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is erroneous, as the same did not apply to the facts of the present case as the proviso to Section 37A(2) clearly provides that the terms of the grant would prevail in the event of any inconsistency; there is no fetter in the Form HH, which required any such NOC, and therefore the provisions of Section 37A were inconsistent with the terms of the Form HH, and the latter would prevail.

4. Mr. Hemant Haryan, Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3, i.e. the CSO, has broadly submitted as under:

(a) There exists an alternate remedy under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which the Petitioner ought to avail of.

(b) The Petitioner, in the garb of the present Petition is indirectly seeking permission for redevelopment of the property.

(c) Under a Government Resolution dated 3rd August 2019, there are certain guidelines in respect of the subject property which are needed to be complied with.

(d) There are certain terms of the Form HH which govern the manner in which the subject property can be used, and there is a penal provision in the Form HH which applies in the event of contravention of those terms. These terms have to be complied with, and the application should accordingly have been made in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 3rd August 2019.

(e) Certain judgments were relied upon in the matters of Ghanshyamdas Agarwal and Another vs. State of Maharashtr