Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6 The learned senior counsel Shri Anturkar who represents the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7040/13, while advancing his submissions in support of the petition, conceded that there is no express provision in the Land Revenue Code, 1966 which makes it imperative for the Revenue authorities to make an entry in the 7/12 extracts relating to the pendency of civil suit. He would, however, submit that this is the only mechanism which would enable a layman and specifically a Tilak 9 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc person from rural area to get knowledge about pendency of the litigation in respect of any property with which he intends to deal. He would submit that the citizens face acute hardship, since there is no mechanism formulated by the revenue authorities or any other department of Government of Maharashtra, by which a citizen is informed about the pendency of litigation, in case he proposes to purchase any property. According to him, this has resulted into a situation which is chaotic and the transactions are being entered into without any knowledge about any pending civil litigation revolving around the said property. The learned senior counsel would make a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of T.G. Ashok Kumar Vs. Govindammal and anr1 and would specifically rely upon paragraph no.19 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He would further submit that in the backdrop of the hardship, anxiety and unnecessary litigation caused on account of absence of a mechanism for prospective purchaser to verify whether a property is subjected to any pending suit or a decree of attachment, a solution which 1 2010(14) SCC 370 Tilak 10 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc has been found for this problem in the State of Maharashtra by an appropriate amendment to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, by Bombay Act IV of 1939, the Hon'ble Apex Court had expressed a hope that the Law Commission and the Parliament considers such amendment or other suitable amendment to cover the existing void in title verification or due diligent procedure and provisions which could be introduced for compulsory registration of such notices in respect of decree and in regard to attachment of immovable properties. The learned senior counsel would also place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.2640 of 2010 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench had recommended to the Government to issue a circular like the one issued by the Nasik Collectorate, so as to ensure that the pendency of the suit in respect of the properties sought to be transferred by any means is brought on record, while effecting an entry in 7/12 and other right column. Thus, in short, the learned senior counsel emphasized that in the absence of any express provision in the Land Revenue Code, 1966, it is necessary to find out some solution and he would submit that section 52 of Tilak 11 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc the Transfer of Property Act itself has been brought on the statute book with an object of taking cognizance of the pendency of a suit or proceedings and by virtue of the said provision, a notice of pendency of such suit or proceeding is registered under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act. On the notice so registered, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order, intends to protect such transactions. He would thus submit that if such is the situation, then taking a note of the same in the record of rights would be in the larger public interest. 7 The learned counsel for the petitioner Advocate Shri Kishor S Patil would advance his submissions in support of his Writ Petition no.8042 of 2014 and would pray for quashing and setting aside of the said Circular dated 21st September 2017. He would adopt the arguments of the learned senior counsel and he would submit that the whole purpose of registering notice of lis pendence is rather defeated by issuance of such a circular which is impugned in the petition. He would submit Tilak 12 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc that as in the case of his petition, suit filed by the petitioner is pending and even the notice of lis pendence is duly registered in accordance with law. He would submit that recording of lis pendence in revenue record itself does not create any right over the property, however, by such recording the transferee is made aware of a pending litigation. He would further submit that in normal course, while purchasing a property, a purchaser would necessarily verify from the revenue record and if such an entry of lis pendence is made, it would obviously help the transferee and it would curtail further litigation. He would submit that making entry of lis pendence in Revenue record does not, in any way, prejudice rights of any person, but the lis pendence as per section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act merely makes it subservient to the rights of the parties to the litigation, though it does not create or affect rights of any person. He, would thus, pray for quashing and setting aside of the said Circular since it is also contrary to the judgment delivered by this Court on 20th October 2010 in Writ Petition No.2640/2010 on which the learned senior counsel Shri Anturkar has also placed heavy reliance.

Tilak 13 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc As against the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the learned AGP Mr.Samant would oppose the petition and would pray for upholding of the impugned Government Resolution. He would submit that the petition was initially filed, seeking directions to the State Government to issue circular to all District Collectors in Maharashtra State, thereby requiring entry of lis pendence to be recorded in the 'other rights column' in village form no. 7/12 maintained by the revenue authorities, but the State has now come up with a policy by issuing resolution on 21st September 2017, thereby directing the Revenue authorities not to take entries in respect of lis pendence in the revenue records. Mr.Samant would submit that the State Government is of the firm view that such entries regarding lis pendence are not required to be made in the village form no.7/12 by the revenue authorities and he would justify the said stand of the State Government on the ground that perusal of the provisions contained in the Land Revenue Code, 1966, specifically Section 148 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not permit such an entry being recorded. Mr.Samant would submit that section 148 of the Maharashtra Tilak 14 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc Land Revenue Code, 1966 enumerates the particulars to be included in the record of rights which is to be maintained in every village. He would submit that the particulars to be included in the revenue record pertains to the nature and extent of the interest of holders, occupants, owners, mortgagees, lessees and tenants, and conditions or liability attached to such interest. He would submit that the pendency of any proceedings or suit before any court or other quasi judicial authority does not amount to any kind of right in praesenti and the right of litigant comes into existence on the passing of decree or judgment or order by the concerned Court after adjudication of the lis.

Tilak 27 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc 13 What the petitioner seeks through present writ petition is that this record of right maintained under Chapter X of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code should record an entry of lis pendence. At this stage, we would refer to the doctrine of lis pendence, is recognized by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Lis pendence means "a pending legal action"

18 In the earlier round of litigation, when the petitioner approached this Court with a similar grievance by filing writ petition no.10052 of 2015 along with connected writ petitions, this Court on 7th June 2017 accepted submissions advanced on behalf of the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra that the State authorities would take into consideration the issue raised in the petition and take appropriate decision within a period of eight weeks. In furtherance of the statement made before this Court, the State Government took a decision in relation to the entries of lis Tilak 38 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc pendence being recorded in the record of rights and issued a Circular on 21st September 2017. The said Circular was specifically issued in the backdrop of the fact of the inconsistency being in operation in the State of Maharashtra in relation to the entry of lis pendence being recorded in the record of rights and on obtaining the opinion of the learned Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra, the circular came to be issued. By the said circular, the State Government has resolved that in light of the provision contained in Section 148 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the particulars to be included in the 7/12 extracts are already set out and this do not include the note of lis pendence being taken in the land records. The State Government, therefore, directed that the entry of lis pendence should not be recorded in the 7/12 extract. Thus, the State Government has taken a final decision on the conflicting directive issued by the respective Collectors. The State Government had made it amply clear by the said circular that the entries regarding lis pendence cannot form part and parcel of the contents of the land records which are to be maintained in terms of section 148 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Tilak 39 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc and the Rules framed thereunder and therefore, in village form 7/12, the lis pendence entries could not be taken. 19 We do not find that there is any error in the said decision and rather the said decision taken by the State Government, as contained in the impugned circular, is in confirmity with the provision of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, since section 148 of the Code sets out the particulars which should be included in the record of rights and it do not stipulate any other particulars to be included, except in accordance with the decision by the State Government, which it can prescribe by the rules. It is the State Government which has made it clear that the pendency of any proceedings or suit before any court or any other quasi judicial authority, does not amount to any kind of right in praesenti and a right of litigant comes into existence only on final adjudication by the concerned Court where the lis is pending. Since the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code itself do not provide for inclusion of a lis pendence in the record of right and the State Government had rather reflected its decision not to include the Tilak 40 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc same in the record of right in the backdrop of the fact that the revenue records are mere reflections of the rights claimed by a person in respect of any immovable property and being reported to the revenue authority and such entries are subject to adjudication of title rights by Court of competent jurisdiction, the said decision of the State Government cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious specifically when section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the properties which are involved in any lis and the principle recognized in the said section put restrictions on the rights of the parties to a suit or proceeding to transfer the property, which is the subject matter of the said litigation. In any case, the object of Section 52 is not to make such transfers made in violation of the said provision to be void ab initio, but are only voidable at the instance of the party who has been prejudiced. The State amendment to section 52 further protects the interest of the land holders in the State and whenever the notices of pending suits or proceedings referred to in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is given under section 18 of the Registration Act, the Land Revenue Code makes it imperative for the Officer Tilak 41 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc recording such a registration to forward an intimation to the talathi of the village. The avowed purpose of such an intimation is to keep the Talathi of a village or tahsildar of a taluka updated about the dealings in respect of a piece of land, in respect of which he is duty bound to maintain the revenue record. In such circumstances, the decision of the State Government not to effect entries of lis pendence in the record of rights is perfectly in tune and spirit with the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and we do not find that the said decision calls for an interference by exercising our writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are merely apprehensive that if such entries are not recorded in the 7/12 extract, the people in the rural area would be deprived of being in know-how of the pending litigation about the property in which they are dealing. However, it needs to be noted that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has been enacted to deal with such a contingency and the rights of the transferee are thus made subservient to the proceedings which are pending before a competent court and the doctrine of lis pendence is based on principle of law and equity and good conscience. The said section creates only a Tilak 42 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc right to be enforced to avoid a transfer made pendente lite, because such transfers are not void but are voidable at the option of the affected parties to the proceeding, pending which the transfer is effected. The right contemplated under Section 52 is a double edged weapon and it can be used as a shield depending on such facts as to what rights or interest are to be transferred and who is the affected party. In any contingency, the application of doctrine of lis pendence is not to nullify the conveyance but only to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to the litigation, that is why the defence of bonafide transferee for value without notice is not available on invoking the doctrine of lis pendence. In view of the said position of law, the claim of the petitioners that the population in rural area would be put to disadvantage, cannot be accepted. 20 It is a settled principle of law that once a methodology for doing a particular act is provided under the statute, rules or regulations then such Act must be done in the manner and the way prescribed alone and in no other way. The origin of this principle is traceable to the decision in Taylor Tilak 43 WP-7040-13-8042-14.doc vs. Taylor (45 LJCH 373) which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmed King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253) who stated as under :