Bombay High Court
Vasant Babarao Shrirao vs Onkar Tulshiramji Batukale And Others on 19 November, 2018
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 WP6020-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.6020 of 2015
...
Vasant Babarao Shrirao,
Aged about 68 years,
Occupation- Nil,
R/o Morshi, Tq. Morshi,
Dist. Amravati.
(L.Rs. Of Petitioner )
1. Smt. Vanmala Vasntrao Shrirao,
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation: Household work,
R/o Radhakrushna Colony,
Morshi, Tq. Morshi,
District Amravati.
2. Sau. Lina Digambar Dhole,
aged about : 47 years,
Occupation: House hold work,
R/o Vasat Nagar near Police
Vasahat, Pathardi Fata,
Nashik, Tq. and Dist. Nashik.
3. Sau. Jyoti Narendra Bijawe,
Aged about 44 years,
Occupation: Household work,
R/o Davarkar Layout,
Near Gajanan Maharaj Mandir,
Bachelor Road, Wardha,
Dist. Wardha.
4. Shri Dnyanesh Vasantrao Shrirao,
Aged about 41 years,
Occupation: Private Service,
R/o Radhakurshna Colony,
Morshi, Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati. .. PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:53:42 :::
2 WP6020-15.odt
.. Versus ..
1. Onkar Tulshiramji Batukale,
Aged about 61 years,
Occupation- Retired,
R/o Morshi, Tq. Morshi,
Dist. Amravati.
(L.Rs. Of Respondent No.1).
1a) Smt. Kamlabai Onkarrao Batukale,
aged about 55 years,
Occupation: Household.
1b) Mahendra Onkarrao Batukale,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist
and service.
1c) Ravindra Onkarrao Batukale,
Aged about 22 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
1d) Surendra Onkarrao Batukale,
Aged about 22 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
All Resident of Jawahar Colony,
Morshi, Tqh. Morshi, Dist. Amrvati.
1e) Sau. Kavita Santoshrao Berad,
Aged about 29 years,
Occ: Household Work,
R/o C/o Santoshrao Arjunrao Berad,
Near Mama Bhachachji Haveli,
Akot, Tah. Akot, Distt. Akola.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Morshi, Tq. Morshi,
Dist. Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:53:42 :::
3 WP6020-15.odt
3. The Additional Collector,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
4. The Additional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. V.A. Kothale, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. V.A. Kothale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Although the legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1 have been served, none appears on their behalf.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present writ petition was filed by the original petitioner Vasant Babarao Shrirao, who is now represented by ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:53:42 ::: 4 WP6020-15.odt his legal representatives, challenging concurrent orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi, Additional Commissioner, Amravati and Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, whereby mutation entries made by the Tahsildar in favour of purchasers who had purchased plots from deceased petitioner, were set aside.
4. Such mutation entries pertained to plot Nos. 36, 31, 34, 18, 20, 37, 19, 33, 32, 28, 27, 23, 24, 29, 22, 30, 21, 39 and 28 located in mouza Durgwada, taluka Morshi, District Amravati in field S.No.7. The said mutation entries were made by the Tahsildar bearing Entry Nos. 760 and 781 dated 28.06.2001. The said plots were sold by the deceased petitioner to various persons and the respective purchasers had been put in possession.
5. These entries dated 28.06.2001 made by the Tahsildar were subject matter of challenge by the deceased Onkar Tulshiramji Batukale before Sub Divisional Officer. By impugned order dated 20.05.2002, the Sub Divisional Officer allowed the application of the deceased respondent no.1 and set aside the mutation entries made by the Tahsildar, principally on the ground that sale deeds had been executed by ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:53:42 ::: 5 WP6020-15.odt the deceased petitioner during the pendency of a civil suit pertaining to the land in question, wherein an interim order had been granted. This civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 1996 was filed by two plot holders. The Sub Divisional Officer held that the fact of interim order being in operation was not taken into consideration by the Tahsildar while making the mutation entries.
6. The said order of the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged by the deceased petitioner before the Additional Collector, Amravati, who by order dated 29.07.2004 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. This order was in turn challenged by the deceased petitioner before the Commissioner, Amravati, by filing revision application under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. By the impugned order dated 14.07.2015, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati dismissed the revision application and confirmed the orders of the Additional Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer.
7. Mr. Kothale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the authorities below failed to take into consideration important subsequent events while ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:53:42 ::: 6 WP6020-15.odt passing the impugned orders. The learned counsel further relied on judgment and order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morshi, whereby Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 1996, stood dismissed. It was submitted that when the suit itself stood dismissed, the interim order merged into the same and the very basis of the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector had been taken away, which the Additional Commissioner failed to appreciate.
8. As noted above, none has appeared on behalf of the legal representatives of the contesting respondent no.1. The learned AGP has appeared for the authorities.
9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it becomes clear that the very basis of the impugned orders has been taken away by dismissal of the said civil suit and that, therefore, the impugned orders whereby the mutation entries were set aside, are rendered unsustainable.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner are quashed ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:53:42 ::: 7 WP6020-15.odt and set aside and the mutation entries made by the Tahsildar dated 28.06.2001 are restored.
11. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(Manish Pitale, J. ) ...
halwai/p.s.
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:53:42 :::