A transaction by an administrator without court permission is voidable, allowing mutation of property rights prior to any legal challenges.

1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith.

2. The challenge in the present Petition is to the order dated 6 February 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejecting Petitioner’s Appeal filed challenging the decision of the Superintendent of Land Records dated 31 October 2015. Petitioner has twin grievances of (i) non-mutation of his name to the record of rights in respect of land and (ii)refusal on the part of the Respondents in subdividing the same and issuance of separate property card extracts.

3. The Petitioner has purchased the land bearing Plot No. 6A vide deed of conveyance dated 23 October 1997 from Mr. Latif Mohamed Hashambhoy and Mr. Gulamali Mohamed Hashambhoy who are the Administrators of the estate of one, Mr. Habib Mohamed Hashambhoy. The Deed of Conveyance has been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai. Similarly, it appears that the Petitioner has also purchased undivided share in the land bearing Plot Nos. 7-B and Plot No. A vide registered Deed of Conveyance dated 18 December 1997 from one, Mr. Govind Mathurdas Kapadia. Petitioner has thereafter purchased other half undivided share in land bearing Plot Nos. 7-B and A vide registered Deed of Conveyance dated 19 December 1997 from the heirs and legal representatives of Mr. Nooruddin Nomanbhai Malbari. This is how Petitioner claims ownership in respect of Plot Nos. 6A, 7-B and A in C.S. No.669 (Part) Hashambhoy Park, of Malabar and Cumballa Hills Division in Mumbai District.

4. After purchase of the said three plots, Petitioner applied to the City Survey Officer for recording his name in the property cards. He also submitted another application for subdivision of Plot Nos. 6A, 7B and A and for issuance of separate property cards. It appears that his name has been mutated to property card of Plot Nos. 7B and A. By order dated 31 October 2015, the City Survey Officer, Mumbai has rejected the request of the Petitioner for recording his name in respect of Plot No. 6A on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to obtain prior permission of the Court before executing Deed of Conveyance dated 23 October 1997 as the Letters of Administration specifically prohibited the Administrator from transferring the plots without prior permission of the Court. So far as the second request for sub-division of the Plots is concerned, the same is not specifically rejected but the Petitioner has been directed to pay the necessary measurement fees and to submit necessary documents so as to process his request.

5. I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. He would draw my attention to the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act, 1955. He would submit that under Clause-(iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 307 , disposal of a property by an Executor or Administrator in contravention of Clauses (i) or (ii) becomes voidable at the instance of any person interested in the property. He would submit that so far, no person has instituted any proceedings questioning the correctness of the Conveyance dated 23 October 1997. He would submit that the transaction is not void, but merely voidable. In support of his contention, he would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 534 He would also place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gotiram Nathu Mendre Vs. Sonabai w/o. Savleram Kahane and Others, AIR 1970 Bom 753. Mr. Patil would further submit that in any case it is the bounden duty of the Revenue Authorities to record effect of any registered document and it is not for