Bombay High Court
Rekha Atmaram Bhoir Alins Rekha ... vs The State Of Maharshtra Through Revenue ... on 23 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 2647
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
P.H. Jayani 20 WPST92471.2020 with 92977.2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 92471 OF 2020
Rekha Atmaram Bhoir alias
Rekha Vidhyadar Patil and ors. ....Petitioners
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 92977 OF 2020
Rakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal ....Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Kishor Patil
i/b. Mr. Sameer Mhatre for the Petitioners in WPST/92471/2020.
Mr. R.M. Haridas for the Petition in WPST/92977/2020.
Mr. Vineet Naik, Sr. Advocate a/w. Sumanth Anchan, Ms. Naveli
Reshamwalla for Wadia Ghandy for Respondent No.3 in both WPs.
Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State.
CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
DATED : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2020.
P. C. :-
. The Petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 20/08/2020 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Revision Application No.813/2019. By the impugned order, learned Additional Commissioner has quashed and set-aside the order dated 15/01/2019 in Appeal No.56/2018 and order dated 07/09/2019 in Second Appeal No.61/2019, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, 1/5 P.H. Jayani 20 WPST92471.2020 with 92977.2020.doc Vasai and the Additional Collector, Palghar and thereby confirmed the mutation entries in question.
2. Heard Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners in WPST/92471/2020, Mr. R.M. Haridas, learned counsel for the Petitioner in WPST/92977/2020, Mr. Vineet Naik, learned Senior counsel for Respondent No.3 and Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State.
3. The dispute is in respect of the mutation entries in respect of the land under Survey No.70/4, 71/3 situated at Village Bapane, Taluka Vasai, Dist. Palghar. The said property was originally owned by Atmaram Kalya Bhoir who expired in the year 1983. Upon his death, the name of his widow - Devkibai and his children i.e., the Petitioners and Respondent No.4 came to be recorded in survey records. It appears that by Agreement for Sale dated 26/02/1987, Devkibai and Respondent No.4 had agreed to sell said property to Respondent No.3. Said Devkibai expired on 13/05/1988 and her name was deleted from survey records under Mutation Entry No.537. Subsequently, Respondent No.3 purchased the said property under a registered Sale Deed executed in their favour by Respondent No.4 - Madhukar. Mutation Entry No.549 came to be effected on the basis of the Sale 2/5 P.H. Jayani 20 WPST92471.2020 with 92977.2020.doc Deed in favour of the Respondent No.3. By Sale Deeds dated 07/04/2015 and 12/02/2016, Respondent No.3 sold land admeasuring 2705.7 sq. meters and 1803.80 sq. meters from Survey No.70/4 to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively. Accordingly, Mutation Entries No.921 and 925 came to be recorded in Records of Right.
4. The Petitioners have challenged the mutation entries No.549, 921 and 925 in Appeal No.56/2018 interalia claiming that the mutation entries were effected on the basis of a forged and fraudulent Sale Deed. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the Appeal and canceled the said mutation entries with respect to the share of the Petitioner and directed to record the names of the Petitioners in 7/12 extracts with respect to the said property. The Additional Collector dismissed the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.3 and confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. Being aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No.3 referred a Revision Application before Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The Petitioner - Rakesh Agarwal filed an Application for intervention alleging that during the pendency of the said Revision, he had purchased the subject land from the Petitioner - Rekha Bhoir for valuable consideration. By the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner allowed the Revision and set aside the order of the Sub 3/5 P.H. Jayani 20 WPST92471.2020 with 92977.2020.doc Divisional Officer and Additional Collector mainly on the ground that Civil proceedings in respect of the said property were pending adjudication before the Civil Court and the authorities below were not competent to determine validity of a registered document. The Additional Commissioner held that since the matter is subjudice, the mutation entries would be subject to the outcome of the Civil Suit. Being aggrieved by this order, the Petitioners have filed these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Petitioners have challenged the mutation entry mainly on the ground that the same have been effected on the basis of a forged and fraudulent sale deed. It is pertinent to note that the said mutation entries were recorded in exercise of powers under Section 149 read with 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. As it has been held by this Court in Shrikant R. Sankanwar and ors. v/s. Krishna Balu Naukudkar, 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 276 the powers under Section 149 and 150 of the Code are to be exercised by the Revenue Officers for the purpose of updating revenue records in respect of rights acquired by the parties in different modes specified in Section 149. The provisions under Section 149 and 150 do not empower the Revenue Authorities to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties or their title to the immovable 4/5 P.H. Jayani 20 WPST92471.2020 with 92977.2020.doc properties. The said provisions of law deal with the Revenue Records being updated in relation to the immovable properties for the purpose of the assessment of revenue and collection thereof.
6. It is thus well settled that the Revenue entries do not decide question of title. These entries are effected only for fiscal purpose and the Revenue Authorities cannot go into the validity of the registered document. In the instant case, the Petitioners - Rekha Bhoir and Jaymala Bhoir have already challenged the validity of the sale deed before the Civil Court. The dispute as regards the title of the property will be decided in the said Civil Suit which is pending adjudication. Hence, the Additional Commissioner was right in observing that the said mutation entries would be subject to the outcome of the said Civil proceedings. There is no merit in the challenge to the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
7. This order shall be digitally signed by the Private Secretary / Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. Digitally signed by Preeti Preeti (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) H. Jayani H. Date:
Jayani 2020.11.25 17:56:29 +0530 5/5