Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ddlr in Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp. vs Chinchwad Devasthan Trust And Ors on 12 August, 2025Matching Fragments
-
1. This petition is filed by the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), to challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Revenue Minister of the State Government in a revision application filed by respondent no.1-Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code('MLRC').
2. The revision application before the State Government was filed by the Trust under Section 257 of the MLRC to Page no. 2 of 51 6-WP-8968-2018 challenge the order dated 6th June 2017, passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records ('DDLR') in an appeal preferred by the Corporation under Section 247 of the MLRC. The appeal before the DDLR was preferred by the Corporation to challenge the order dated 8 th December 2014 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records ('District Superintendent') in an appeal preferred by the Corporation under Section 247 of the MLRC. The Corporation had preferred the appeal before the District Superintendent to challenge the order dated 4th August 2008, passed by the City Survey Officer. The date of the order is wrongly typed as 4 th July 2008 by the City Survey Officer; hence, the correct date is clarified in the order of DDLR. By the said order, the City Survey Officer issued directions to enter the name of the Trust as "original holder" in respect of an area admeasuring 7 Hectares 89 Ares of the land situated adjacent to survey no.1, excluding the area covered by the lake at village Bhosari. The City Survey Officer issued directions to create a property card for the said area in the name of the Trust by numbering it as CTS No. 4579. The City Survey Officer passed the said order Page no. 3 of 51 6-WP-8968-2018 in accordance with the directions issued by the Superintendent of Land Records on 16 th July 2008.
h) The City Survey Officer's order dated 4 th August 2008 was for the first time challenged in 2014, only after the Division Bench of this Court issued conditional directions to complete the acquisition process. Hence, the learned Minister has rightly set aside the order cancelling the order passed by the City Survey Officer. Submissions in rejoinder on behalf of the Corporation :
7. In response to the arguments raised on behalf of the Trust, the learned senior counsel for the Corporation submitted that the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records did not direct that the name of the Trust be recorded. The jurisdiction exercised by the DDLR should be treated as a revisional jurisdiction. It is important to note that Page no. 19 of 51 6-WP-8968-2018 the learned senior counsel for the Corporation, however, does not dispute that a second appeal before the DDLR would not survive. But he also submits that it is merely a procedural lapse; hence, the jurisdiction exercised by the DDLR must be treated as a power exercised under the revisional jurisdiction. He further submits that the Divisional Commissioner's letter to the Collector clearly records that there were objections raised on the ownership of the area proposed to be acquired, and so far as the area of the water body is concerned, the same could be owned only by the Corporation. Hence, the learned Minister has exercised powers beyond his jurisdiction by ignoring the relevant provisions of the MLRC. Analysis and Conclusions:
26. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the Corporation filed a second appeal under Section 247 of the MLRC before the DDLR. In this appeal, the Corporation also added the District Superintendent of Land Records and the Page no. 39 of 51 6-WP-8968-2018 District Collector as party respondents. In view of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the MLRC, only one appeal is provided in accordance with the provisions of the MLRC against an order passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section ( 2). Hence, the second appeal filed before the DDLR by the Corporation was not maintainable. However, in this non-maintainable appeal, DDLR not only permitted the learned Collector to be added as a party respondent, but also permitted the filing of substantive pleadings raising new grounds, which is even beyond the scope of an appeal under Section 247 of the MLRC.
27. There is no debate on the point that, in view of sub- section (3) of Section 20 of the MLRC, only one appeal is provided in accordance with the provisions of the MLRC against an order passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). However, learned senior counsel for the Corporation submitted that the order passed by the DDLR in the appeal filed by the Corporation can be treated as the revisional powers exercised under Section 257 of the MLRC. I do not find any substance in this argument, as the scope of appeal Page no. 40 of 51 6-WP-8968-2018 under Section 247 and the revision under Section 257 of the MLRC are completely different. In the facts of the present case, although only one appeal was permissible in view of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the MLRC, the DDLR entertained the second appeal filed by the Corporation under Section 247 of the MLRC and further permitted the addition of parties and fresh pleadings by taking recourse to the appellate authority's powers under sub-section (3) of Section 255 of the MLRC. Hence, the DDLR has acted without any jurisdiction.