Bombay High Court
Smt. Mona Atul Patel Through Her Poa ... vs The State Govt. Of Mah. Through Its ... on 23 March, 2021
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik
11.WP.3917-19.doc
Bhogale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3917 OF 2019
Mona Atul Patel .. Petitioner
vs.
The State Government of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents
------------------------
Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate I/b. Mr. Ashok
Dhanuka, Mr. Shrikrishna Ganbavle, Vidhi Karia, Mr. Ashis Jain for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat a/w Mr. Aniesh S. Jadhav for Respondent
No.2.
Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State/Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
------------------------
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : MARCH 23, 2021
P.C.:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner assails the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister in a Revision fled under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ('the Code' for short). The dispute pertains to the three mutation entries. Two of the mutation entries being mutation entry Nos.6176 and 6177 pertains to recording of a lis pendence in respect of the suit property. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhakephalkar submits that 1/5
11.WP.3917-19.doc this Court in the case of Pramod Moreshwar Tattu Vs. Sub- Divisional Offer, Baramati and others 1 has held that pendency of any proceedings or suit before any court or any other quasi judicial authority, does not amount to any kind of right in praesenti and a right of litigant comes into existence only on fnal adjudication by the concerned Court where the lis is pending. The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not provide for inclusion of a lis pendence in the record of right. The State Government had clarifed this position in the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that mutation entry Nos.6176 and 6177 are prior to coming into force of Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 and therefore the Government Resolution will have no application to the mutation entries. I have gone through the decision of this Court in Pramod Moreshwar Tattu's case. This Court observed that the Code itself does not provide for inclusion of a lis pendence in the record of right and it is in this context this Court held that the Government Resolution issued by the State Government in 2017 cannot be faulted. The decision of this Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The case of Respondent is not 1 Writ Petition No.7040 of 2013 2/5
11.WP.3917-19.doc improved only because the Government Resolution of 2017 is issued after the mutation entries are recorded. In the light of the law laid down by the Pramod Moreshwar Tattu's case, the mutation entry Nos.6176 and 6177 will have to be set side and accordingly set aside. The decision of the Hon'ble Minister to the extent that it set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) as regards the mutation entry Nos.6176 and 6177 calls for interference and to that extent the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is set aside.
4. So far as the mutation entry No.5029 is concerned, it is the contention of learned Senior Advocate that the same was efected without any notice to the Petitioner. It is his submission that Section 150 of the Code requires notice to be issued to all concerned before any mutation entry is efected. He further pointed out that an application was made under the Right to Information Act requesting that the copies of the proceedings in respect of mutation entry No.5029 be supplied. Even the documents supplied do not indicate that any notice under Section 150 of the Code was ever issued to the Petitioner. He therefore submits that the Hon'ble Minister was not justifed in setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). Mr. Dhakephalkar submitted that the Additional 3/5
11.WP.3917-19.doc Commissioner (Revenue) decided the matter in favour of the Petitioner by a reasoned order and the same did not call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Minister.
5. I am informed that the suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.66 of 2011 is pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Vasai between the parties in respect of suit property. The relief claimed is declaration, cancellation of deed of conveyance, for injunction and costs of the proceeding. There is also a counter suit being Regular Civil Suit No.547 of 2011 pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Vasai. In view of the settled position of law as stated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sankalfhan Jayfhandbhai Patel and Others Vs. Vithalbhai Jayfhandbhai Patel and Others2, the mutation entries do not decide any right, title and interest in respect of the suit property in favour of the any of the parties. The same are recorded only for fscal purpose. It is for the parties to establish their right, title and interest in the suit property by resorting to appropriate civil proceedings. In the present case the civil suits are already pending. In this view of the matter, the mutation entry No.5029 will obviously be governed by the decision and 2 (1996) 6 SCC 433 4/5
11.WP.3917-19.doc subject to the outcome of the said suit. In this view of the matter, I do not fnd any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister so far as mutation entry No.5029 is concerned as the same does not in any manner decide the right, title and interest of the parties in the suit property. The trial Court to decide the suits without being infuenced by any observations made by the Hon'ble Minister in the impugned order or that of the Revenue authorities.
6. Subject to this clarifcation, the present Petition is partly allowed.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) Digitally signed by Urmila Urmila P. Ingle P. Date:
Ingle 2021.03.23
19:11:03
+0530
5/5