Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 34
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Manish Pitale, J
Shri Divakar R. Dalvi – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Collector & SDO, Bicholim, Sub Division Bicholim, Goa – Respondent
WP-592-2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. A. A. Agni, Ms. Jay Sawaikar
For the Respondents: Ms. Neha Kholkar, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni
A partition application under Goa Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code cannot proceed when co-owners raise questions of title, necessitating resolution by a civil court.
Headnote:(A) The Goa Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 - Section 61(2) - Applicability of the provisions concerning co-owners seeking partition of property - Validity of sale deeds and disputes over title raised by co-owners - The Collector cannot proceed with partition until title is resolved in civil court. (Paras 1, 19, 27)
(B) Jurisdiction of the Collector - The question of title will arise once objections are raised regarding ownership of a property, triggering the stipulations of Section 61(2).
(C) Importance of maintaining proper legal proceedings and evidence before revenue authorities regarding partition claims.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought partition based on registered sale deeds; however, co-owners raised objections regarding the validity of these deeds and the title.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the proceedings for partition must remain in abeyance until a civil court resolves the questions of title.
Issues: Whether objections raised constitute a question of title within the meaning of Section 61(2) and whether the application for partition could proceed in their absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that any question regarding the title necessitates a resolution before any partition can occur, affirming the operative effect of the provisions outlined in the law.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for property partition requires clarity on title. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. objections regarding title necessitate civil court intervention. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. provisions in law bar partition proceedings when title questions arise. (Para 19 , 27 , 29) |
| 4. final ruling dismissing the petition upholds statutory requirements. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT
1. The validity of an order dated 30.05.2015, passed by Respondent no.1-Deputy Collector, hinges on interpretation and application of Section 61 (2) of The Goa Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code , 1968, (for short, 'the aforesaid Code') to the facts of the present case.
2. The Petitioner filed an application dated 18.01.2011 before Respondent no.1 under Section 61 of the aforesaid Code seeking partition of his share from property located in survey no. 207/1 and 208/1 of Village Pale. The Petitioner placed reliance on five registered Sale Deeds executed in his favour by certain co-owners of the property. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is also a co-owner of the property. According to the Petitioner, since undivided shares of his vendors were sold to him by way of aforesaid Sale Deeds, he was entitled to invoke Section 61 (2) of the aforesaid Code, which provides that a co-holder can apply to the Collector for a partition of his share in a holding.
3. Some of the co-owners i.e. the contesting Respondents in this Writ Petition filed objections to the said application. They claimed that when the Petitioner approached Respondent no.1 on the basis that undivided shares of the vendors were sold in his favour, he could not have claimed a specific area of the property while seeking partition. It was also claimed that since the shares of the co-owners were not ascertained and there was yet to be a partition of the property by metes and bounds, the application could not be entertained by Respondent no.1. Some of the co-owners while raising objection to the aforesaid application, stated that the Sale Deeds in question were ex facie invalid for the reason that the names of the vendors were themselves not recorded in Survey form No. I and XIV and that the Sale Deeds were not executed by the daughter of one of the vendors. On this basis, it was claimed that there was a serious dispute of title raised by the objectors and that the application could not be entertained in view of the proviso to Section 61 (2) of the said Code, which states that where any question as to title is raised, no partition shall be made until such question has been decided by a civil suit.
4. In this application seeking partition, the Petitioner filed an application for placing on record additional documents, which included details of an Inventory Proceeding pending before the competent Court and the Petitioner claimed that the said documents could assist the Respondent no.1 in deciding the application for partition in a comprehensive manner.
5. By the impugned order, the Respondent no.1 not only dismissed the application for production of documents but further held that the application for partition shall be kept in abeyance until the parties obtained an order from a competent Court of law by which the property is partitioned by metes and bounds or there is a family partition dividing the property by metes and bounds.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed the present Petition, wherein Rule was granted. The Petition has come up for final hearing. At this stage, a contention which was earlier sought to be raised on behalf of the contesting Respondents as regards availability of alternative remedy, was not pressed on their behalf and submissions of the parties were heard on merits.
7. Mrs. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the nature of objections raised on behalf of the contesting Respondents in the present case, could not be said to be raising a question as to title. It was submitted that the co- owners having sold their undivided shares to t
