Revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate title or determine the validity of a civil court decree during mutation proceedings. Such proceedings are purely administrative and fiscal, and authorities are bound to give effect to registered judicial decrees until set aside by a competent civil court.

JUDGMENT:

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by Consent of the parties.

2) By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the legality, validity and correctness of the orders dated 14th May 2009 passed by Respondent No.3 – Superintendent of Land Records, 29th March 2010 passed by Respondent No.2 – Deputy Director of Land Records, and 30th November 2011 (“the impugned order”) passed by Respondent No.1 – State of Maharashtra, (collectively referred to as the “impugned orders”). By the said orders, the mutation entry effected in the Property Register Card in respect of land bearing Survey No.236, Hissa No.2, CTS No. B/1061, admeasuring about 1067.7 square metres, situate at Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400 050 (“the subject property”), in favour of the Petitioner came to be deleted, and the Petitioner’s application for mutation of her name as owner was finally rejected by the Respondent No.1, despite the Petitioner’s claim of title founded on a Consent Decree passed by this Court.

FACTUAL BACKDROP

3) One Mr. John Alexander Dias was the original owner of several immovable properties, including the subject property. Upon his demise on 20th January 1966, the subject property devolved upon his widow, Mrs. Lidwina Mary Dias, who, according to the Petitioner, became the absolute owner thereof.

4) Mrs. Lidwina Mary Dias expired on 12th September 1966, leaving behind her two sisters and one brother, namely Mrs. Mona Oliver, Mrs. Collette Oliver and Mr. George Oliver, who, according to the Petitioner, succeeded to the subject property as her legal heirs and legatees under a Will executed by Mrs. Lidwina Mary Dias.

5) Mrs. Collette Oliver applied for Letters of Administration in respect of Wills of John and Lidwina vide Petitions Nos.394 and 395 of 1970 before this Court. However, due to default, Petition No.395 of 1970 came to be dismissed.

6) On 17th November 1979, the Petitioner entered into an Agreement for Sale with the said Mrs. Mona Oliver, Mrs. Collette Oliver and Mr. George Oliver, whereby the subject property was agreed to be sold to the Petitioner for a total consideration of ₹1,70,000/-. The Petitioner states that pursuant thereto, a part consideration of Rs.17,000/- was paid, with the balance being payable upon execution of the Deed of Conveyance.

7) As the vendors had failed to perform their obligations under the Agreement for Sale, the Petitioner instituted a Suit No.2465 of 1985 before this Court seeking specific performance of the Agreement for Sale dated 17th November 1979.

8) During the pendency of the said Suit, the disputes between the Petitioner and the vendors were amicably resolved and Consent Terms dated 5th November 1985 were executed. Pursuant thereto, a Consent Decree was passed by this Court directing conveyance of the subject property in favour of the Petitioner.

9) The Petitioner states that although the Consent Decree was passed in the year 1985, it was lodged for registration only on 14th December 1986. However, the issue of payment of stamp duty in respect of the Consent Decree remained pending and was finally resolved in July 2007, whereafter the Consent Decree came to be r