Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2268
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
ROLLAND STANISLAUS BRITTO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 5 ORS. – Respondent
WPL/18891/2021
Mr. Rolland S. Britto, Mr. Milind More, Mr. Mukesh Subramaniam, Mr. Rony Wilson
The court emphasized that area corrections must be independently assessed for each party, and boundaries should prevail over area discrepancies, invalidating the Minister's mixed ruling.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 135 - Dispute regarding area and boundaries of land - Petitioner challenged the order of the Minister-Revenue allowing area corrections in favor of Respondent No.6, which was based on a City Survey Officer's report - The court found that the Minister's order was unsustainable due to mixing of independent proceedings and application of different yardsticks for area corrections - The court restored the proceedings for area correction of Petitioner's plots and set aside the Minister's order. (Paras 1, 10, 42, 45)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner sought area correction for his plots, claiming ownership through inheritance and gifts, while Respondent No.6 sought corrections for his adjoining plots, leading to conflicting claims over the void area. (Paras 3, 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the Minister's order was indefensible as it failed to recognize the independent nature of the parties' claims and applied inconsistent standards in assessing the area corrections. (Paras 42, 45)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Minister had the authority to alter boundaries and the validity of the City Survey Officer's report in determining area corrections. (Paras 10, 42)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the proceedings for area corrections must be decided independently for each party, emphasizing that the boundaries should prevail over area discrepancies. (Paras 42, 45)
Result: The court set aside the Minister's order and restored the proceedings for the Petitioner's area correction. (Paras 45)
JUDGMENT :-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2) Petitioner has filed this Petition challenging Order dated 21 June 2021 passed by Minister-Revenue by which the Revision filed by Respondent No.6 has been allowed and Order dated 21 August 2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Kokan Division has been set aside. The learned Minister has directed that area corrections be effected in respect of CTS No. 22D as well as CTS Nos. 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D by adding area of 130.3 sq. mtrs. as per Report of the City Survey Office, Borivali dated 19 November 2018. Petitioner has prayed for implementation of Report dated 8 October 2010 of the City Survey Officer by increasing the area of his Plot bearing CTS No. 25A by 176.2 sq. mtrs. By amending the Petition, Petitioner has also challenged Order dated 28 July 2022 passed by Collector, Mumbai in pursuance of the Order of the learned Minister as well as impugned survey / measurement notice dated 28 July 2022 and Survey dated 19 September 2022.
3) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner’s grandfather purchased plot bearing CTS No. 25 corresponding to Survey No. 5 Hissa No.2 at village Mandpeshwar, Tal. Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District, Dahisar (West) Mumbai. In the year 1968, CTS No. 25 was divided into three plots as Plot Nos. 25A, 25B and 25C by Petitioner's grandfather for the purpose of distribution amongst his son and daughter-in-law. Plot Nos. 25A and 25C were transferred in favour of daughter-in-law (Petitioner's mother) whereas plot CTS No. 25B was transferred to his son Bernard Britto. In the year 1980, CTS No. 25 was officially subdivided by the City Survey Office into three plots bearing CTS Nos. 25A, 25B and 25C vide order of subdivision dated 1 November 1980. After his mother's death in 1988, Plot Nos. 25A and 25C were succeeded by Petitioner, his father, brother and sister. That Petitioner's father, brother and Sister executed a gift in favour of Petitioner and transferred their right, title and interest in Plot Nos. 25A and 25C in Petitioner's favour. It is Petitioner's case that in the year 1974, Plot bearing CTS No. 24 was purchased by his elder brother Kenneth Britto vide registered sale deed. That plot No. 24 was gifted in favour of Petitioner by his brother in the year 2007. This is how Petitioner claims ownership in respect of Plots bearing CTS Nos. 24, 25A and 25C.
4) It is Petitioner's case that plot bearing CTS Nos. 25B and 25C have been developed and buildings are constructed thereof. That plot bearing CTS Nos. 24 and 25A are still undeveloped and are vacant and in his possession.
5) Petitioner made an application to the Collector on 6 April 2010 requesting area correction in respect of Plot bearing CTS No. 24 and 25A by increasing the area by 230.85 sq. mtrs. by changing the boundaries. The Collector directed City Survey Office to take steps in pursuance of Petitioner's Application. The City Survey Office submitted a report for correcting the area of CTS Nos. 24 and 25A. Respondent No.6, who is the owner of adjoining plot No. 22D on western side of Plot No. 24 raised an objection to the report of the City Survey Officer. That the objection was adjudicated by Superintendent of Land Records, who directed City Survey Office to re-survey the lands of Petitioner and Respondent No.6 and accordingly a Plain table Survey Plan No. 1/2010 dated 3 September 2010 was prepared by the City Survey Officer. The City Survey Officer thereafter submitted a report dated 8 October 2010 to District Superintendent of Land Records stating that there is a void space in CTS No. 25A, which is required to be included in the area of CTS No. 25A. Accordingly, the City Survey Officer recommended, by his report dated 8 October 2010, that the area of CTS No. 25A be increased by 176.20 sq. mtrs (875.9 + 176.2 =1052.1 sq mtrs). The Superintendent of Land Records, by letter dated 12 November 2010, once again
