IMPORTANT POINT
For entering one’s name in the Record of Rights, the applicant has to be a holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee or tenant. Merely saying that the original owner or his power of attorney holder did not object at any time to the possession, does not make his possession lawful.

Headnote:Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – Sections 148 r/w sections 149 and 150, and section 2(12) – Record of rights – Name of only a holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee or tenant can be entered into record of rights – Merely a holder or occupant does not meet the requirements of law for exercising such a right – The land holder must be lawfully in possession – Mere non-objection of possession by original owner or his constituted power of attorney holder does not make the possession lawful – More so when the power of attorney was specific for purpose of collecting rent and for no other purpose whatsoever – Appellant not claiming adverse possession – Mutation entry rightly set aside by the High Court. (Para 18, 19)
       2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 95 – Cited with approval
       Facts of the case:
       The land in question, admeasuring 11 acres out of the land bearing Survey No. 221 of Village Eksar, Taluka Borivali, Maharashtra, originally belonged to one Kamlakar Narayan Samant. A portion of the said land was in the possession of Narayan Laxman Patil-the appellant herein who along with six other persons used to cultivate paddy crop on the said land.
       On 12.09.1986, the appellant moved an application before the Tehsildar, Borivali that since he and 6 other persons were cultivating paddy and were in possession of the suit land for the last 15-20 years, their names be entered into the “other rights” column of the 7/12 extract in respect of 11 acres of land out of Survey No. 221 of Village Eksar.
       On 06.03.1987, Mutation Entry No. 4601 was made recording the name of the appellant herein along with six other persons in “other rights” column of the Record of Rights.
       M/s Gala Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.-Respondent No. 1 and the original owner-Kamlakar Narayan Samant entered into an agreement for sale dated 15.05.1978 with regard to the said land. Respondent No. 1 further filed a Short Cause Suit before the High Court for a declaration that there is a valid, subsisting and binding contract between the parties.
       The single Judge of the High Court allowed the same in favour of Respondent No. 1 and he obtained a decree on the basis of the settlement reached between the parties.
       After a number of appeals and revision, the High Court finally set aside the mutation entry No. 4601 dated 06.03.1987 in the “other rights” column.
       Finding of the Court:
       Hugh Court rightly set aside the mutation entry.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1. Leave granted

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 245 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2103 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2006 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2103 of 2003.

3. Brief facts:

(a) The land in question, admeasuring 11 acres out of the land bearing Survey No. 221 of Village Eksar, Taluka Borivali, Maharashtra, originally belonged to one Kamlakar Narayan Samant. A portion of the said land was in the possession of Narayan Laxman Patil-the appellant herein who along with six other persons used to cultivate paddy crop on the said land.

(b) On 12.09.1986, the appellant herein moved an application before the Tehsildar, Borivali that since he and 6 other persons were cultivating paddy and were in possession of the suit land for the last 15-20 years, their names be entered into the “other rights” column of the 7/12 extract in respect of 11 acres of land out of Survey No. 221 of Village Eksar.

(c) Notice of the said application was issued to the landlord-Kamlakar Narayan Samant. On 06.03.1987, Mutation Entry No. 4601 was made recording the name of the appellant herein along with six other persons in “other rights” column of the Record of Rights mentioning that the notice of the said application was duly served upon the original owner but no objection received.

(d) M/s Gala Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.-Respondent No. 1 and the original owner-Kamlakar Narayan Samant entered into an agreement for sale dated 15.05.1978 with regard to the land situated at Village Eksar. Respondent No. 1 further filed a Short Cause Suit No. 1797 of 1981 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for a declaration that there is a valid, subsisting and binding contract between the parties.

(e) By order dated 12.10.1989, learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the same in favour of Respondent No. 1 herein and on 19.10.1995, Respondent No. 1 obtained a decree on the basis of the settlement reached between the parties.

(f) After the mutation entry, the owner-Kamlakar Narayan Samant wrote letters dated 13.08.1987 and 13.10.1987 to the Tehsildar, Taluka Borivali that certain persons have claimed themselves to be in possession of the said property as tenants by way of right of either agricultural activities or catching fish and their claim is fraudulent and bogus. It was also mentioned in the said letters that he has not given consent to anyone to give statement on his behalf and to receive notices of the proceedings.

(g) Against the entry in the register of ‘Record of Rights”, Respondent No. 1 herein filed a Revision Application being DRN/RTS/3/2000 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai, Suburban District, Bandra (E). By order dated 30.12.2000, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the revision while cancelling the mutation entry dated 06.03.1987.

(h) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2000, the appellant challenged the same by way of appeal being No. C/RTS/A-3/2001 before the Deputy Collector (Appeals), Mumbai Suburban District which got dismissed by judgment and order dated 31.07.2001.

(i) Feeling aggrieved, the appellant herein filed a Revision Application being No. Appeal/Desk/RTS/Revision/66/01 before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 14.03.2003, allowed the revision application.

(j) Respondent No. 1, aggrieved by allowing the revision petition, filed a Writ Petition being No. 2103 of 2003 before the High Court of Bombay. Learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 03.08.2006 dismissed the same.

(k) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal being No. 245 of 2007 in Writ Petition 2103 of 2003 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the Hig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2015 Supreme(SC) 973

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RANJAN GOGOI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.Narayan Laxman Patil – AppellantVersusM/s Gala Construction Company Private Limited & Ors. – RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL NO. 8399 OF 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 26698 OF 2010) Decided on : 08-10-2015

IMPORTANT POINTFor entering one’s name in the Record of Rights, the applicant has to be a holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee or tenant. Merely saying that the original owner or his power of attorney holder did not object at any time to the possession, does not make his possession lawful.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Narayan Laxman Patil – Appellant
Versus
M/s Gala Construction Company Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8399 OF 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 26698 OF 2010)
Decided on : 08-10-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
For entering one’s name in the Record of Rights, the applicant has to be a holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee or tenant. Merely saying that the original owner or his power of attorney holder did not object at any time to the possession, does not make his possession lawful.