Bombay High Court
Atmaram Zubaji Bansode And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 1272
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
1 Cri.W.P. No. 806-2018 Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 806 OF 2018
1. Atmaram Zubaji Bansode,
Age : 69 Years, Occ. Retired
Government Servant,
R/o. Plot No. 54, Vidya-Neketan
Colony, Near Apex Hospital Road,
Aurangabad.
2. Ramnath Baburao Dhanve,
Age : 67 Years, Occ. Retired
Government Servant,
R/o. Plot No. 54, Vidya-Neketan
Colony, Near Apex Hospital Road,
Aurangabad. ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station City Chowk,
Aurangabad.
2. Rafik Ahmed s/o Mohammad ssman,
Age : 68 Years, Occ. Agriculgture,
R/o. DRT-2, Labour Colony,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS
....
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. S.A. Gaikwad
A.P.P for respondent-State : Mrs. D.S. Jape
Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. R.G. Joshi
.....
CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND
M. G. SEWLIKAR,JJ.
DATE : 10.12.2019.
JUDGMENT (PER T.V. NALWADE, J) :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 23:44:36 ::: 2 Cri.W.P. No. 806-2018 Judgment.odt
2. The present proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No. 22/2018 registered with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad and for the relief of quashing of proceeding of R.C.C. No. 945 of 2018 which is pending in the Court of learned 6th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. The case is filed in C.R. No. 22/2018. The case is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 120-B, 167, 182, 204, 217, 219, 417, 418, 425, 470, 471, 474 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9 of The Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by respondent No.2. Rafik Ahmed s/o Mohammad ssman. It is contention of the informant that his father Mohammad ssman was owner of 2 Hector 3 R ( 5 acres and 3 gunthas) portion of the land gut No. 11 situated at village Gevrai, Tahsil and district Aurangabad. It is his contention that Yusuf Ali was a friend of informant and Yusuf Ali had helped his deceased father in the year 1984 and 1987 by giving loan of Rs. 25,000/- when his father was in need of money due to his illness. It is contended that by way of security sale deeds were executed in respect of the aforesaid lands by the father of the informant, in favour of Yusuf Ali but the sale deeds were executed by way of security. It is his contention that in the year 1992 father of the informant had returned the amount to ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 23:44:36 ::: 3 Cri.W.P. No. 806-2018 Judgment.odt Yusuf Ali and he had requested Yusuf Ali to re-convey the property to him. It is his contention that Yusuf Ali avoided to re-convey the property under one or other pretext and then Yusuf Ali went to foreign country, Yemen. According to him, Yusuf Ali died in the Yemen on 07.03.1997 and due to that re- conveyance deed could not be executed by Yusuf Ali.
3. It is contention of the informant that, Mohammad Ali, son of Yusuf Ali knew that the sale deeds were by way of security but he applied to revenue authority on 04.05.1998 for mutation and the application was given in the name of Yusuf Ali who was already dead. It is his contention that he approached the authority and he took written objection for making entry of the name of son of Yusuf Ali as the owner and he informed that Yusuf Ali was already dead. It is contended that even when this information was given and the objection to the mutation was taken, Tahsildar Bansode present petitioner No.1 passed order and sanctioned the mutation. It is contended that Circle Ofcer had helped son of Yusuf Ali in that process. Petitioner No.2 is the said Circle Ofcer. It is contended that initially name of Yusuf Ali was entered in the record of rights and then the widow of Yusuf Ali had obtained certificate of heirship and on that basis her name was also entered in the revenue record. She sold the property in the ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 23:44:36 ::: 4 Cri.W.P. No. 806-2018 Judgment.odt year 2005.
4. It is contention of the informant that after taking of the entry and after dismissal of the appeal filed on revenue side by the informant he filed civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 1131 of 2001, to challenge the sale deeds executed by his father, which were two in numbers. It is contention that his suit was decreed in his favour on 28.08.2002.
5. It is contention of the informant that after decision of the Civil Court, he had approached Talathi and he had requested to enter his name in the revenue record but his name was not entered in the revenue record. It is contended that even when there was decision of the Civil Court, on the basis of the application given by widow of Yusuf Ali and on the basis of heirship certificate her name was entered in the revenue record and then the property was transferred by her.
6. It is contention of the informant that property is still in his possession and by allowing the mutations of the aforesaid nature, the revenue ofcers have committed the aforesaid offences. It is contended that in the past, action was taken against Talathi who had subsequently entered the name of widow of the Yusuf Ali and that circumstance shows that the revenue ofcer has committed the offence.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 23:44:36 ::: 5 Cri.W.P. No. 806-2018 Judgment.odt
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the decision of Regular Civil suit No. 1131 of 2001. The decision dated 22.04.2014 shows that the previous decision given in favour of the plaintiff, informant was challenged in the Appellate Court and by the decision of Appellate Court matter was remanded back to the trial Court. Thus, the decision given in the year 2001 by Civil Court was set-aside and in the year 2014 the suit itself came to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the informant submitted that this decision of the Civil Court is challenged by filing appeal and appeal is still pending.
8. The submissions made and aforesaid circumstances show that the sale deeds were made in the years 1984 and 1987 and in the sale deeds there was no mention that they were made by way of security for the amount given to the owner- vendor.
9. The suit to challenge the sale deeds came to be filed in the yer 2001 (on 18.09.2001). In the suit, the informant has not succeeded as yet the execution of the sale deeds by father is not disputed by the informant. When sale deeds is executed and it is registered, in view of provision of Section 154 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code it becomes a routine to make ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 23:44:36 ::: 6 Cri.W.P. No. 806-2018 Judgment.odt mutation on the basis of sale-deed. The registering ofce is expected to send copy of sale deed to the revenue ofcer. Revenue ofcer is expected to ascertain as to whether such sale deed was executed and then, he is expected to make mutation entry in favour of the purchaser. The aforesaid contentions of the informant show that he had appeared in the enquiry, which was started for making mutation in favour of the purchaser Yusuf Ali. The contention that Yusuf Ali was dead when the mutation proceeding was started but the application was given in the name of Yusuf Ali, deceased person and due to that offence is committed cannot be accepted. In ordinary course, when mutation is to be made, name of the purchaser will be entered first even if he is dead on the date of mutation and after that names of the Legal representatives of the purchaser will be entered by deleting the name of the purchaser. If the legal representatives of the purchaser give application in the name of the purchaser that does not amount commission of the offence of the deceit or forgery as in ordinary course, the legal representative is entitled to get entered the name of the purchaser and then get entered the names of the legal representatives of the purchaser. This action of the legal representatives of Yusuf Ali has not caused any loss to the informant. He needs to get his ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 23:44:36 ::: 7 Cri.W.P. No. 806-2018 Judgment.odt rights decided through Civil Court. The revenue ofcer is bound to follow the aforesaid procedure and make the mutation. Thus, the orders of the mutation made by the revenue ofcers were as per the procedure laid down in the Land Revenue Code and ofcers did it only as a part of their duty. It is clear that the informant is trying to pressurize everybody including revenue ofcers as he feels that he may not get the result in his favour, from Civil Court due to aforesaid circumstances.
10. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the complaint given by Shakila Begum is referred to the District Court as there was manipulation of some other record and that circumstances also needs to be considered. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the subsequent acts of the parties, who have dispute with regard to title need not be considered in the present matter. The relevant facts and circumstances are considered by this Court. This Court holds that relief needs to be given in favour of the petitioners who are only the revenue ofcers and who discharged their duty. In the result, following order :-
ORDER
1. The Writ Petition is allowed.
2. Relief is granted to the petitioners in terms of prayer clause 'B' and to that extent case filed stands quashed ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 23:44:36 ::: 8 Cri.W.P. No. 806-2018 Judgment.odt and set-aside.
3. Rule made absolute in those terms.
(M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 23:44:36 :::