Bombay High Court
Atlanta Limited vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors on 4 August, 2022
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
P.H. Jayani 910 WPL17849.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17849 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22950 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17849 OF 2022
Atlanta Limited .... Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
Ms. Fereshte Sethna a/w. Mr. Abhishek Tilak
i/b. DMD Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for the State - R.Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Dintar Madon, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Karl Tamboly,
Mr. Ziyad Madon, Mr. Chirag Saraowgi i/b.
Tushar Goradia for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
DATED : 04th AUGUST, 2022.
P. C. :-
. The Petitioner has assailed order dated 11/05/2022 passed by learned Minister of Revenue of the State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order, learned Minister dismissed the Revision Application and thereby confirmed the order dated 09/02/2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Konkan under section 257 of MLRC directing cancellation of mutation entry no.1787 in respect of land under CTS No.624, 625 and 626 of village Kandivali. During the pendency of the Petition, the Petitioner has sought directions to stay the effect, implementation and operation of the Impugned Order dated 11th May 1/3 P.H. Jayani 910 WPL17849.2022.doc 2022 (Exhibit - A).
2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the property under CTS No.624, 625 and 626 situated at village Kandivali, Taluka Borivali. There is a dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 in respect of the said property. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner herein has filed a suit being Suit No.175/2013 for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No.3. Interim relief sought by the Petitioner in the said suit was rejected by this Court though the Appeal has been admitted and pending hearing. During the pendency of the said Appeal, Respondent No.3 applied for entering his name in the survey records on the basis of the Deed of Conveyance executed in his favour. Learned Sub-divisional Officer has rejected the Application which order was confirmed by the Deputy Collector. The Additional Commissioner allowed the Revision filed by the Respondent No.3 which order was challenged before the Revenue Minister and by the impugned order dated 11/05/2022, the learned Minister, Revenue dismissed the Revenue Application.
3. The learned Minister has observed that the predecessor of Respondent No.1 had purchased the property by registered document 2/3 P.H. Jayani 910 WPL17849.2022.doc dated 23/02/2007. Learned Minister has also taken note of the observations made by the Civil Court that the original owners of the land had handed over possession of the property after receiving considering from the predecessors of Respondent No.1. Furthermore, by order dated 24/11/2011 in Notice of Motion filed in Suit (L) No.1962 of 2011, this Court had prima facie rejected the challenge to the Deed of Conveyance and had declined to grant interim relief in favour of the Petitioner.
4. It is stated that the revenue entry is already effected pursuant to the order of the Additional Commissioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also states that the Respondent No.3 has already transferred the property in favour of the third party.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances and in view of the order dated 24/11/2011, no case is made out for interim relief. Petition to come up for hearing as per its turn.
PREETI (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) H JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI H JAYANI Date: 2022.08.18 10:33:33 +0530 3/3