SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(BOM) 1052

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



Advocates appeared:
Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b Mr. Siddheshwar Namdev Biradar for the Petitioner.
In WP No.221-2021
Mr. Kishor Patil a/w. Mr. Anuj Gaikar i/b Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar for the
Petitioner in WP No.2690/2022.
Ms. Deepa Pohuja i/b J. Law & Assoc. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sachin Gite for Respondent
Nos.3 to 5.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for respondent-State.

Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes; their role is limited to verifying documents for mutation entries under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 149, 150, and 154 - Challenge to mutation entries - Petitioner claims rights under registered sale deeds, while Respondent contests based on prior development agreement - Revenue authorities exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating title disputes - Orders quashed and mutation entries kept in abeyance pending civil suit resolution. (Paras 19, 25, 26)

(B) Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities - Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes; their role is limited to verifying documents for mutation entries. (Paras 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner in Writ Petition No 221 of 2021 purchased land from Respondent No 2, while Respondent No 1 claims development rights. Multiple mutation entries and civil suits are involved, with disputes over the validity of sale deeds and agreements. (Paras 3-8)

Findings of Court:
The Revenue Authorities improperly adjudicated title disputes, leading to unsustainable orders. The court directed that mutation entries be kept in abeyance until civil suits are resolved. (Paras 25, 26)

Issues: Whether the Revenue Authorities had jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes and the validity of the mutation entries. (Paras 19, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Revenue Authorities must not engage in title disputes and should only verify the documents presented for mutation. (Paras 19, 21)

Result: Petitions partly allowed; orders quashed and mutation entries kept in abeyance.

JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the parties waive notice. Both Petitions were heard finally with consent.

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top