IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Vanessa De Souza – Appellant
Versus
Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 221 of 2021 With Writ Petition No. 2690 of 2022
2. The Petitions take exception to the order dated 29th December, 2020 passed by the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry for Revenue and orders passed by the subordinate authorities in revenue proceedings leading to the filing of the Revision Application before the State Government. Common submissions were advanced and hence both Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No 221 of 2021 claims to have purchased the subject land from the Respondent No 2- Ali Akbar Jafari, who is the Petitioner in the connected Writ Petition No 2690 of 2022 by registered sale deed. The Respondent No 1 in both the Petitions claims to have acquired development rights from Ali Akbar Jafari in respect of the subject property. The proceedings arise out of challenge to the Mutation Entry No 15406 certified in favour of Petitioner in Writ Petition No 221 of 2021 and Mutation Entry No 15166 certified in favour of Petitioner in Writ Petition No 2690 of 2022.
CASE PLEADED IN WRIT PETITION NO 221 of 2021:
4. The Respondent No.2 is either the owner or registered Power of Attorney holder from land owners being land admeasuring 180 Acres situated at Charholi Budruk, District Pune. bearing Gat No.118 admeasuring 5 Hectors 35 R situated at village Charholi, Taluka Haveli District Pune. The land was originally owned by one Bhaskar Raghunath Munde who sold the same to respondent 2 by two registered sale deeds dated 16th December 1994. Accordingly, mutation entry No.10902 and 10903 were certified in favour of Respondent No 2.
5. On 1st April, 2004, the Respondent No 1, Respondent No 2 and M/s. Radiant Builders, partnership firm of Respondent No 2 executed a Memorandum of Understanding alongwith Power of Attorney by which Respondent No.1 agreed to take over the existing loan liabilities of Respondent No 2 and M/s Radiant Builders and to develop the subject land. Respondent No 2 vide legal notice dated 19th February, 2009 published in newspaper terminated the MOU and revoked the Power of Attorney.
6. On 18th October 2012, the subject property was sold by Respondent No 2 to the Petitioner by registered sale deed and accordingly mutation entry No.15406 was certified on 28th March, 2013. Respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.1450 of 2012 in the Civil Court seeking specific performance of the development agreement and cancellation of the sale deed dated 18th October 2012 along with interim application for temporary injunction.
7. In the year 2015, Respondent No.1 challenged the Mutation Entry No 15406 by filing RTS Appeal No.331 of 2013 before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, MLRC), which came to be allowed vide order dated 3rd August 2015. As against this the Petitioner filed RTS Second Appeal No.462 of 2015 before the Additional Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 30th May 2016. Revision came to be preferred before the Additional Commissioner being Revision Application No.194 of 2016 which also was dismissed by the order dated 25th September 2017. Second Revision Application was filed under Section 257 of MLRC on 5th November 2017. On 16th February 2018, the then Honourable Revenue Minister directed the parties to file written arguments within 15 days and the proceedings were closed. On 7th October 2020, notice was issued for hearing to be held on 16th October 2020. On 16th October 2020, the Petitioner submitted an application for adjournment. On 4th November 2020, Advocate for the Petitioner submitted an application for getting certified copy of the records since the papers were misplaced. On 29th December 2020 impugned order came to be passed dismissing the Revision.
CASE PLEADED IN WRIT PETITION NO 2690 OF 2022:
8. The subject matter of the Petition is land bearing Survey No 77, 7
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes; their role is limited to verifying documents for mutation entries under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
When a document of registered sale-deed is produced before the authority, the revenue authorities are bound to give effect to the same and are not required to decide the question of title.
Revenue authorities must effect mutation based on registered civil court consent decrees without adjudicating title, probate, prohibitory orders, or registration issues, as proceedings are fiscal onl....
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title, probate or decree validity in mutation proceedings; must effect mutation on registered civil decrees for fiscal purposes unless set aside by competent cou....
Point of Law : where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.