Bombay High Court
Vanessa De Souza vs Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 October, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:40060
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.221 OF 2021.
Vanessa De Souza,
Office No.206, Akbar Radiant Plaza,
327, M. G. Road, Pune-411 001. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director Mr. Niranjan L. Hiranandani
Registered Office: 514, Dhalmal Towers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021,
2. Ali Akbar Jafari
Office No.203, Akbar Radiant Plaza,
327, M. G. Road, Pune-411001,
3.Hiraman Tukaram Khandve,
r/o 105, Santnagar, Lohgaon,
A/P &Taluka Haveli, District Pune,
Maharashtra.
4. Hemant Bagareddy Motadoo,
r/o Bungalow No. 10, East Street,
Pune Cantonment, Pune-4 1 1001,
Maharashtra
5. Deepak Tukaram Khandve,
rlo 105, Santnagar, Lohgaon,
A/P& Taluka Haveli, District Pune.
Maharashtra Kamgar Talathi,
6. Kamgar Talathi,
Charholi Budruk, Tahsil Haveli,
District Pune, Maharashtra
1 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
7.Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli,
Near Alpabachat Bhavan,
Behind Divisional Revenue Commissioner's Office.
Old Vidhan Bhavan Building,
Pune-411 001, Maharashtra
8.Additional Collector, Pune,
Office of Pune District Collectorate,
Near Sasoon Hospital & Central Building.
Pune-41 1001. Maharashtra
9. Additional Commissioner, Pune,
Divisional Revenue Commissioner's Office,
Old Vidhan Bhavan Building,
Pune-411001, Malharashtra
10.Revenue Minister (2nd Revisional Authority).
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
Maharashtra ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2690 OF 2022.
Ali Akbar Jafari
Office No.203, Akbar Radiant Plaza,
327, M. G. Road, Pune-411 001. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director Mr. Niranjan L. Hiranandani
Registered Office: 514, Dhalmal Towers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021,
2. Ali Akbar Jafari
2 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
Office No.203, Akbar Radiant Plaza,
327, M. G. Road, Pune-411001,
3.Hiraman Tukaram Khandve,
r/o 105, Santnagar, Lohgaon,
A/P &Taluka Haveli, District Pune,
Maharashtra.
4. Hemant Bagareddy Motadoo,
r/o Bungalow No. 10, East Street,
Pune Cantonment, Pune-4 1 1001,
Maharashtra
5. Deepak Tukaram Khandve,
rlo 105, Santnagar, Lohgaon,
A/P& Taluka Haveli, District Pune.
Maharashtra Kamgar Talathi,
6. Kamgar Talathi,
Charholi Budruk, Tahsil Haveli,
District Pune, Maharashtra
7.Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli,
Near Alpabachat Bhavan,
Behind Divisional Revenue Commissioner's Office.
Old Vidhan Bhavan Building,
Pune-411 001, Maharashtra
8.Additional Collector, Pune,
Office of Pune District Collectorate,
Near Sasoon Hospital & Central Building.
Pune-41 1001. Maharashtra
9. Additional Commissioner, Pune,
Divisional Revenue Commissioner's Office,
Old Vidhan Bhavan Building,
Pune-411001, Malharashtra
3 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
10.Revenue Minister (2nd Revisional Authority).
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
Maharashtra ...Respondents.
------------
Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b Mr. Siddheshwar Namdev Biradar for the Petitioner.
In WP No.221-2021
Mr. Kishor Patil a/w. Mr. Anuj Gaikar i/b Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar for the
Petitioner in WP No.2690/2022.
Ms. Deepa Pohuja i/b J. Law & Assoc. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sachin Gite for Respondent
Nos.3 to 5.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for respondent-State.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 13th August, 2024.
Pronounced on : 9th October, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the parties waive notice. Both Petitions were heard finally with consent.
2. The Petitions take exception to the order dated 29 th December, 2020 passed by the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry for Revenue and orders passed by the subordinate authorities in revenue proceedings leading to the filing of the Revision Application before the State Government. Common submissions were advanced and hence both Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No 221 of 2021 claims to have purchased the subject land from the Respondent No 2- Ali Akbar Jafari, who is the Petitioner in the connected Writ Petition No 2690 of 2022 by registered sale deed. The Respondent No 1 in both the Petitions claims to have acquired development rights from Ali Akbar Jafari in respect of the subject property. The proceedings arise out of challenge to the Mutation Entry No 15406 certified in favour of Petitioner in Writ Petition No 221 of 2021 and Mutation Entry No 15166 certified in favour of Petitioner in Writ Petition No 2690 of 2022.
CASE PLEADED IN WRIT PETITION NO 221 of 2021:
4. The Respondent No.2 is either the owner or registered Power of Attorney holder from land owners being land admeasuring 180 Acres situated at Charholi Budruk, District Pune. bearing Gat No.118 admeasuring 5 Hectors 35 R situated at village Charholi, Taluka Haveli District Pune. The land was originally owned by one Bhaskar Raghunath Munde who sold the same to respondent 2 by two registered sale deeds dated 16th December 1994. Accordingly, mutation entry No.10902 and 10903 were certified in favour of Respondent No 2.
5. On 1st April, 2004, the Respondent No 1, Respondent No 2 and M/s. Radiant Builders, partnership firm of Respondent No 2 executed a Memorandum of Understanding alongwith Power of Attorney by which
5 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc Respondent No.1 agreed to take over the existing loan liabilities of Respondent No 2 and M/s Radiant Builders and to develop the subject land. Respondent No 2 vide legal notice dated 19th February, 2009 published in newspaper terminated the MOU and revoked the Power of Attorney.
6. On 18th October 2012, the subject property was sold by Respondent No 2 to the Petitioner by registered sale deed and accordingly mutation entry No.15406 was certified on 28th March, 2013. Respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.1450 of 2012 in the Civil Court seeking specific performance of the development agreement and cancellation of the sale deed dated 18 th October 2012 along with interim application for temporary injunction.
7. In the year 2015, Respondent No.1 challenged the Mutation Entry No 15406 by filing RTS Appeal No.331 of 2013 before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, MLRC), which came to be allowed vide order dated 3rd August 2015. As against this the Petitioner filed RTS Second Appeal No.462 of 2015 before the Additional Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 30th May 2016. Revision came to be preferred before the Additional Commissioner being Revision Application No.194 of 2016 which also was dismissed by the order dated 25th September 2017. Second Revision Application was filed 6 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc under Section 257 of MLRC on 5 th November 2017. On 16 th February 2018, the then Honourable Revenue Minister directed the parties to file written arguments within 15 days and the proceedings were closed. On 7th October 2020, notice was issued for hearing to be held on 16th October 2020. On 16th October 2020, the Petitioner submitted an application for adjournment. On 4 th November 2020, Advocate for the Petitioner submitted an application for getting certified copy of the records since the papers were misplaced. On 29th December 2020 impugned order came to be passed dismissing the Revision. CASE PLEADED IN WRIT PETITION NO 2690 OF 2022:
8. The subject matter of the Petition is land bearing Survey No 77, 78/1, 79, 92/1, 93/1 at Charholi, District Pune. The Petitioner herein is Respondent No 2 in the connected Petition. The pleadings as regards execution of MOU with Respondent No.1 and termination of the same are identical as in the connected petition. The subject lands are stated to belong to one Salim Amir Chamadia who executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner herein. Subsequently vide registered sale deeds, the original owner sold the lands to Raymond Dara Doctor whose name came to be mutated in the record of rights.
Thereafter on 30th July, 2012, Raymond Dara Doctor sold the land to the present Petitioner vide registered sale deed. Petitioner filed an application for mutating his name in the record of rights which was 7 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc objected and matter was referred to the Tahsildar, who vide judgment dated 26th March, 2013 passed in RTS Case No 70/2012 directed mutation of the Petitioner's name in the record of rights and Mutation Entry No 15166 came to be certified. Civil Suit NO 1296/2012 was filed by the Respondent No 1 for declaration that the sale deed dated 30 th July, 2012 is null and void. Mutation Entry No 15166 came to be challenged by the Respondent No.1 which was allowed by SDO as against which Appeal was filed before the Additional Collector, which was rejected. RTS Revision No 193 of 2016 was filed before the Additional Commissioner which came to be dismissed. Second Revision came to be filed before the State Government. On 16th February, 2018, matter was listed for hearing and no hearing was given and file was closed for filing written submissions and order. Thereafter due to change in office, fresh notice of hearing was given for hearing on 16 th October, 2020. By giving two weeks time to file written submissions, matter was closed for order. Vide order dated 29th December, 2020, the Revision Application came to be dismissed.
9. Heard Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner. In WP No.221-2021. Mr. Kishor Patil for the Petitioner in WP No.2690/2022, Ms. Deepa Pohuja for Respondent No.1, Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for respondent-State.
8 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc
10. Mr. Godbole, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No 221 of 2021 would submit that though the impugned order records that written submissions were filed, however, no written submissions were filed. He would further submit that the impugned order has held that the Power of Attorney cannot be revoked by public notice and has in fact concluded the issue as regards the termination of the MOU and has decided title dispute. According to him, the findings in the impugned order amounts to going into the validity of the sale transaction executed with the petitioner, which was beyond the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities considering that Civil Suit filed by respondent No.1 was pending adjudication. He would further submit that the mutation entry was effected pursuant to valid agreement for sale executed between the parties. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 149 of the MLRC, he submits that under the said provision the acquisition of right has to be reported and said provision does not include a development agreement. He submits that development agreement is merely a license as there is no transfer of title and thus question of invoking Section 149 of MLRC does not arise. He would further submit that after following procedure as prescribed under Section 150 of the MLRC entry has been certified in favour of the petitioner. He submits that under Section 154 of the MLRC only when the document purports to create or assign or 9 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc extinguish any title in the respect of the land, intimation has to be sent by the registering Authority to the Talathi and therefore the development agreement which does not contemplate transfer of title is not covered by the said provision. Pointing out to the pleadings in the Special Civil Suit No.1450 of 2012 filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2, he submits that the challenge in the said proceedings is to the sale deed on the ground of forged and fabricated documents. He submits that though the pleading is that the property has been transferred with the help of forged documents, there is no declaration to that effect which has been sought and the only relief sought is that the sale deed is null and void and not binding upon the respondent No.1.
11. Drawing support from the decision of Ramesh Shantilal Modi vs State of Maharashtra,1 he submits that the Authorities under MLRC cannot conduct an inquiry beyond the powers given under the law which power is restricted to ascertain the veracity of the proposed entry based on the documents produced by the parties and the authorities cannot adjudicate upon right acquired by the parties to such properties in respect of which mutation entry is requested. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has held that for Section 149 and 150 of MLRC to operate, the applicant has to be owner 1 2018 (6) Mh. L. J. 173 10 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc mortgagee or tenant. He would submit that therefore the position is very clear that the disputed questions of title cannot be gone into while considering the challenge to the mutation entry.
12. Mr. Patil, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2690 of 2022 adopts the submissions of Mr. Godbole and submits that the Petitioner had purchased the said property from Respondent No.2 therein. He submits that there was valid sale deed which was executed on 30th July 2012 by which the property was purchased. He would further submit that the Civil Suit has been filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner for challenging the validity of the sale deed dated 30th July 2012 and for cancellation of sale deed. He submits that under Section 149 the Authorities cannot go into the validity of earlier transactions. He submits that before mutating the name of the Petitioner in 7/12 extract all objections were raised by respondent No.1 and thereafter by order dated 26 th March 2013 Mutation Entry No.15166 was effected in favour of the Petitioner. He would further submit that respondent No.1 approached the partnership firm of the petitioner seeking development rights in respect of the suit property upon an assurance to take over the existing loan liability of the petitioner and his firm and as respondent No.1 failed to commence the project and started disposing the property, legal notice came to be issued which was also published in the 11 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc newspaper terminating the earlier MOU as well as the Power of Attorney and development agreement. He submits that thereafter on 30th July 2012, Respondent No.2 executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the Authorities have gone into disputed questions of title which is not permissible.
13. Per contra, Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 to 5 would submit that as far as Writ Petition No.221 of 2021 is concerned Respondent No.1 has transferred all rights in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. He would further submit that there is no pleading in the Petition as regards the non submission of written arguments before the Hon'ble Minister. He would further submit that the Revenue Authorities have held that no right vests in the Petitioner by rightly holding that the development agreement and Power of Attorney could not have been cancelled by way of public notice. He submits that before the DRT the Respondent No 2 was judgment debtor in which there was an agreement and more than Rs. 2 Crores has been paid by the Respondent No.1. He submits that despite thereof, property was sold to the Petitioner and the mutation entry was certified on 28th March 2013. He submits that the Power of Attorney is registered document and Section 154 of the MLRC will include any charge on the subject land. He submits that while certifying the mutation entry necessary procedure was not followed.
12 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc He submits that it is not his case that the names of respondent No.3 to 5 should be mutated in the revenue records but the objection is to the mutation in the name of the Petitioner. He submits that the suit has been filed in the year 2012 whereas the mutation entry has been certified in the year 2013 and therefore it is necessary that status quo should be maintained. He points out the observations in the decision of Ramesh Shantilal Modi vs State of Maharashtra (supra) and would submit that in that case based on the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney, the deed of conveyance came to be registered and subsequently mutation entry was certified. He submits that in that case the Court has held that the validity of the development agreement as well as the Power of Attorney could not have been adjudicated by the revenue authorities and in fact upheld the mutation entry based on the development agreement.
14. As far as Writ Petition No.2690 of 2022 is concerned, he submits that the Petitioner had introduced Respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 pursuant to which respondent No.2 had executed the development agreement in favour of Respondent No.1 and had also handed over possession. He submits that as there is valid development agreement there could not have been any subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the Petitioner and therefore the same came to be challenged. He submits that the mutation entry which came to be 13 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc certified by dismissing the objection raised by the petitioner was allowed by the Hon'ble Minister after considering that the Power of Attorney could not be terminated by issuance of public notice. He would submit that mutation entry should be kept in abeyance in accordance with the view taken by this court in case of Rajiv Surendra Doddanavar vs Madhrui Veerdhaval Chalukya2 He submits that as the Power of Attorney and the development agreement were registered documents, the subsequent deed of conveyance executed in respect of the subject property should not be given effect to.
15. In rejoinder, Mr. Godbole would submit that the Sub Divisional Officer has noted the pendency of civil suit and has held that order passed in Civil Court will be binding on the parties. He submits that in such case it is not necessary to cancel the mutation entry No.15406 executed in favour of the Petitioner. He submits that execution of Power of Attorney does not create any right in the suit property. REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
16. Firstly dealing with the submission of Mr. Godbole that no written arguments were filed before the Hon'ble Minister, this Court had directed the learned AGP to take instructions and to produce the record in order to ascertain whether written arguments were filed by the Petitioners. Learned AGP, upon instructions, submits that the 2 Writ Petition No 7194 of 2021 decided on 3rd April, 2024.
14 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc written arguments were filed by the Petitioners on 26 th February 2018. This fact was thereafter fairly conceded by Mr. Godbole and he would submit that no opportunity of personal hearing was given. Instead of remanding the the matter, this Court heard the parties at length and has dealt with the submissions raised and therefore remand of the matter would be an exercise in futility.
17. Coming to the undisputed facts, in the present case the execution of the the development agreement and the Power of Attorney in favour of the Respondent No 1, the alleged termination of the development agreement alongwith revocation of Power of Attorney and the subsequent registered sale deeds in favour of the Petitioner in both the Petitions are not disputed. The pendency of the Civil Suit by the Respondent No 1 challenging the sale deeds is also not disputed.
18. The challenge is to the certification of Mutation Entries in favour of the Petitioners pursuant to the execution of the sale deeds. The Petitioners claim right under the registered sale deeds which are subject matter of challenge before the Civil Courts. The Respondent No 1 or the Respondent Nos 3 to 5 have not applied for mutating their names in the revenue records and their objection is to the mutation of the Petitioners names in the revenue records. Under Section 149 of MLRC where any person acquires by succession, survivorship, 15 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any right as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord, government lessee, tenant of any land, he is required to report the acquisition of such right to the Talathi. Section 154 of MLRC provides that where any document purporting to create, assign or extinguish any title to, or any charge on, land used for agricultural purposes or in respect of which a record of rights has been prepared is registered, the registering officer shall send intimation to the Talathi. The Talathi in cases where intimation is received under Section 149 or Section 154 of MLRC is thereafter required to follow the procedure set out in Section 150 of MLRC and then certify the mutation entries.
19. The settled position in law about which there is no dispute is that under Section 149 and Section 150 of MLRC, the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed right, title and interest of the parties. The provisions only deal with the updation of the revenue records based on the report of acquisition of right in the property by any party in a manner known to law. In that context, learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramesh Shantilal Modi vs State of Maharashtra (supra) has noted the decision of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and ors vs Krishna Balu Naukudkar3 holding that the inquiry under Section 150 of MLRC is restricted to ascertain the 3 2003 (2) Mh. L. J. 276 16 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc veracity of the proposed entry based on documents produced by the parties and cannot travel beyond the power given to the authorities to adjudicate the rights acquired by the parties. The decision of Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel vs Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari 4 also noted that a registered document under Section 74 of Evidence Act, 1872 has lot of sanctity attached to it and revenue authority is not empowered to directly or indirectly set aside the registered document. In facts of that case, the learned Single Judge held that the validity of development agreement and Power of Attorneys as well as the conveyance deeds cannot be gone into by the revenue authority in proceedings under Section 149 read with Section 150 of MLRC.
20. It is settled that the inquiry which is contemplated under Section 150 of the MLRC is not in relation to the right itself in or into the immovable property and all that is required is to ascertain the veracity of the proposed entry based on the documents produced by the parties. In the present case, perusal of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 3rd August 2015 would indicate that the Sub-Divisional Officer has held that upon parting with valuable consideration the development agreement and irrevocable Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 could not have entered into sale deed with the petitioner and that in the year 4 AIR 2010 SC 2132 17 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc 2005 as the petitioner has executed an agreement upon payment of consideration, Respondent No.2 did not have any right left to thereafter transfer the property. The Sub Divisional Officer has further held that the development agreement could not be cancelled by issuance of public notice and it is required to be cancelled through the Civil Court. Perusal of the findings of the Sub Divisional Officer would indicate that the Sub Divisional Officer has delved into the issue of validity of the right of respondent No.2 to transfer the property in favour of the petitioner after having executed the Development Agreement. The exercise contemplated under Section 247 of the MLRC while adjudicating the challenge to the mutation entry is restricted to ascertain the veracity of the entry based on the documents produced by the parties. For that purpose the Authority under the MLRC is required to consider whether there has been any acquisition of rights and upon receiving report of such acquisition whether the procedure under section 150 has been properly followed. The revenue authorities cannot go into the validity of acquisition of rights.
21. The Respondent No 1 objected to the Mutation Entry effected for the reason that there was prior registered development agreement executed with the Respondent No 1. Although it was contended that the development agreement was terminated vide public notice, it was not for the revenue authorities to adjudicate the issue of termination.
18 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc The moment the submissions supported by documents evidences rival claims of right title and interest in the property, the revenue authorities are required to stay their hands. Entering into a dispute about title by the revenue authorities amounts to exercising the jurisdiction vested in the Civil Courts which is impermissible. In the present case there is civil litigation pending challenging the validity of the Sale deeds and the authorities thus could not have ventured to decide the validity of the registered documents.
22. The findings of the Sub Divisional Officer has been further upheld by the Additional Collector by holding that the sale deed executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of the Petitioner is illegal based on the finding on the validity of the development agreement which was executed between respondent No.1 and respondent no.2. The Divisional Commissioner has also arrived at the same finding and based on the same has cancelled the mutation entry. The Hon'ble Minister by the impugned order has upheld the findings of the subordinate authorities and have held that the registered development agreement and registered Power of Attorneys cannot be cancelled by issuance of public notice and thus as the development agreement and the Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of respondent No.1 there is no right left with respondent No.2 to transfer the same in favour of the petitioner.
19 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc
23. It is thus clear from the findings noted above that the Revenue Authorities under the MLRC have dealt with the validity of the registered documents and thus decided the title dispute and based on the said finding on title have cancelled mutation entries.
24. It is no doubt true that the revenue records are for fiscal purposes and does not create or extinguish any rights in favour of any person. However at the same time, it cannot be lost sight that the mutation entries have presumptive value and an entry in record of rights is presumed to be true. Where the record of rights demonstrates certification of mutation entry in favour of certain person, the same attains significance in transactions pertaining to the said properties and is often construed as corroborative evidence qua the title to the property. Sometimes the entries in the record of rights constitute only evidence to establish one's title to the property. In case of Rajiv Surendra Doddanavar vs Madhuri Veerdhaval Chalukya (supra), I have taken a view that in event of serious dispute as to title, the Mutation Entry should be kept in abeyance.
25. The revenue authorities by adjudicating the validity and legality of the sale deeds executed in favour of the Petitioners while entertaining a challenge to the mutation entries have clearly exceeded their jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The impugned orders are therefore clearly 20 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc unsustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
26. The sequitur of quashing of the impugned orders would be restoration of mutation entries, however, in the present case, the rival claims are based on registered documents i.e. registered development agreement in favour of the Respondent No 1 and the subsequent registered sale deeds in favour of the Petitioners. The sanctity of the registered documents whether a registered development agreement or Conveyance Deed cannot be undermined. Although Mr. Godbole would submit that development agreement is merely a license as there is no transfer of title and thus question of invoking Section 149 of MLRC does not arise, at the same time it needs to be noted that valuable rights in the property are created by virtue of development agreements. Section 149 governs the acquisition of rights whether as holder, occupant, owner etc. The expression "to be holder of land" is defined in Section 2(12) to be lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not. Even assuming arguendo that Section 149 cannot be invoked by the Respondent No 1, the challenge to the Mutation Entries is stated to be based on prior development rights claimed to have been alienated in favour of the Respondent No 1 by the Respondent No 2 for valuable consideration. The dispute raises competing issues of title in the subject property which is pending for determination in the Civil Court. As such, in my opinion, the restoration 21 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc of the Mutation Entries would assist the probability of further transactions being effected in respect of the subject land. Thus, in my view, the appropriate course is to keep the Mutation Entry No.15406 and 15166 in abeyance till the disputed rights in the property are determined in Civil proceedings.
27. In light of the above, the following order is passed:
:ORDER :
(a) The Petitions are partly allowed;
(b) The impugned orders dated 29th December, 2020 passed in Revision Petition No RTS-3417/4728/C.R. 152/J-5 and RTS-
3417/4729/C.R. 151/J-5, orders dated 25th September, 2017 passed in RTS Revision No Pune/193/2016 and RTS Revision No Pune/194/2016 , orders dated 30th May, 2016 passed in RTS Appeal No 2A/463/2015 and RTS Appeal No 2A/462/2015, orders dated 3rd August, 2015 passed in RTS Appeal No 330 of 2013 and RTS Appeal No 331 of 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside; and
(c) The Mutation Entry No.15406 and Mutation Entry No.15166 are directed to be kept in abeyance till the final determination by the Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.1450 of 2012 and Special Civil Suit No. 1296 of 2012 respectively.
22 of 23 WP-221-21-F-8.doc
28. Rule is partly made absolute in above terms. In view of disposal of petition, Interim/Civil Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] 23 of 23 Signed by: Rajeshwari S. Karve Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2024 19:45:08