The main legal point established in the judgment is that for mutation in the Record of Rights, no prior permission of the Collector is required for lands in Form 'HH' or under a sanad in Schedule H, and Section 37a does not apply retrospectively to transactions preceding its introduction in 2015.

JUDGMENT

1. The present judgment disposes of two Writ Petitions filed by the abovenamed Petitioners, who for convenience are separately referred to as 'Shetty' (Writ Petition (L) No. 7184 of 2020) and 'Charisma' (Writ Petition (L) No. 7193 of 2020. There are minor factual differences in the two Petitions, but the material issues are the same and hence, both Petitions may be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The short issue involved in the present Petitions is whether the orders of the City Survey Officer, Respondent No. 1 to the Petitions, refusing to mutate the names of the respective Petitioners in the revenue records, principally on the ground that permission of the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District was required as a pre-condition for carrying out the mutation, can be sustained.

3. In Shetty's case, there is a registered Conveyance Deed, by which the subject plot was transferred in the name of one Kamalbai Pathak. There is a form of sanad in the format specified under Schedule 'H', which records that the terms of the tenure of the occupancy in respect of the subject land is both transferable and heritable. This sanad is signed by the Collector. There are five such sanads for the various sub-plots annexed at Exhibits 'a1' to 'a5' of Shetty's Petition. Shetty claims rights to the property through the son of the aforesaid Kamalbai Pathak one arun Pathak, who in turn has been bequeathed the property under a Will dated 26th July 1986, which has been placed on record in Shetty's Petition. Shetty has purchased the property under a registered Conveyance Deed dated 28th December 2001 from the aforesaid arun Pathak. On 30th March 2019, Shetty made an application to the City Survey Officer, Chembur to enter his name in the Record of Rights in respect of the subject property. By the Impugned Order dated 24th april 2019, the City Survey Officer rejected Shetty's application on the grounds that the Property Card (which was in Kamalbai's name) bore a different name from that of Shetty's vendor i.e., the aforesaid arun Pathak. Further, it was held that the said land being B1 category land, further action could not be taken. as it transpires from the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1, the objection appears to be that permission of the Collector would have to be taken as a pre-condition to effecting the mutation and the category of the land would need to be changed from 'B1' category to 'C' category.

4. In Charisma's Petition, the original title documents are under Form 'HH' and the same do not contain any fetter or restraint against transferability. By diverse documents of transfer, the subject property eventually came to vest in Charisma under a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 8th September 2008. On 23rd September 2019, Charisma made an application to the City Survey Officer, to enter its name in the Record of Rights in respect of the said property. By the Impugned Order dated 9th October 2019, the City Survey Officer, while rejecting the application relied upon a Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 3rd august 2019, issued by the Revenue and Forest Department, stating that prior to the mutation, the approval of the Collector would be required, as the land was in 'B1' category.

5. From a conspectus of the above facts, it is clear that the limited issue is whether for the purpose of carrying out a mutation in the Record of Rights, the prior permission of the Collector is required, given that the lands are 'B1' Category lands.

6. We have heard Mr. Cama for the Petitioner in Shetty's Petition and Mr. Deshmukh for the Petitioner in Charisma's Petition. We have also heard Mr. Dighe for Respondent No.1 who has addressed us compositely in both Petitions.

7. It is the stand of the Petitioners as urged by Mr. Cama and Mr. Deshmukh that:

a. That this Court has repeatedly held that for carrying out a mutation in the Record of Rights, no prior permission of the Collector is required.

b. That while the Collector may be entitled