Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is the case of the petitioners that based on the documents supplied by the said GSK and confirming their ownership of the lands, the said transaction was concluded and the lands were acquired. It is contended that after such transaction was concluded, relying upon the representation Page 0964 of the vendors, the petitioners had made several plans of putting up construction. In other words, the petitioners decided to continue the non agricultural user. However, without any prior notice and behind their back, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to the writ petition, effected entries in the revenue record and the entries are to the effect that the lands purchased by the petitioners are "private forest". The petitioners thereafter noticed that the mutation entries have resulted in further particulars being inserted in the property register cards pertaining to these lands. Further, they discovered that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are asserting that these lands are "private forest" on the basis of the some notice issued way back in 1957, under the 1927 Act. The petitioners were further surprised that on the basis of these entries the fifth respondent has not issued the commencement certificate and that is how the entire plan of putting up construction is not being implemented. Resultantly, crores of Rupees which have been invested for purchasing the land and proposed construction activities are being wasted. The petitioners have challenged the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as wholly illegal and without any jurisdiction. The petitioners have contended that the lands which are the subject matter of the petition abut Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Mulund, Ghatkopar along side which there have been in existence atleast since last 50 years the factories, public buildings and residential area. There are other builders who have put up their construction on such lands and they are also affected and their petitions have also been entertained by this Court.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 4 some time in the year 2005-2006, at the instance of respondent No. 3, purported to make Mutation Entry bearing No. 5079 dated 16th January, 2006 and Mutation Entry No. 993 dated 24th January, 2006 so also some pencil entries in the Revenue record stating that the petitioners' lands are "private forest" and have been acquired under the Private Forest Act. These entries, according to the petitioners, have been purported to be made for the first time after 31 years of the Private Forest Act coming into force. The entries have been made on the basis that certain show cause notices under Section 35(3) of the 1927 Act have been issued in respect of these lands in 1957. It is their case that these show causes notices never resulted in the final notification under Section 35(1) of 1927 Act. It is their case that the show cause notices, therefore, lapsed and ceased to be in existence/operation after repeal of the 1927 Act. Once these notices are not live notices but abandoned, then, the lands cannot become private forest under the Private Forest Act, 1975. The Mutation and Pencil entries which have been made on the basis of such abandoned and virtually dead notices cannot have any legal effect and they are ex facie without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void.

65. Mr.Khambata submits that the entries made in the records of rights for individual plots are illegal, ultra vires the Maharashtra Land Revenue Page 0991 Code, 1966 void and non est. Mr.Khambata submits that the amendment to the record of rights in respect of individual plots by inserting name of the Forest Department in the column "Ittar Hak" (other rights) is also illegal and without the authority of law and should be cancelled by issue of an appropriate writ by this Court. Mr.Khambata submits that (i) Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 sets out a detailed and mandatory procedure by which mutations or amendments to the Record of Rights can be effected. This procedure requires a particular sequence to be followed. An entry is first to be made by the Talathi in a Register of Mutations. This entry in the Register of Mutations is then posted at a conspicuous place and written intimation has to be given to all persons who appear from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutation to be interested in the mutations and to any other person whom the talathi has reason to believe is interested therein (Section 150(2)). It is only after receiving and disposing of the objections from such interested persons that the entry in the Register of Mutations can be duly certified as provided by Section 150(5) and (6). It is only after such certification that the entry in the Register of Mutations can be transferred to the Record of Rights (Section 150(5); (ii) The Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights and Registers (Preparation and Maintenance) Rules, 1971 ("the 1971 Rules") prescribe the exact procedure and forms to be followed for deciding disputes with regard to the proposed certification of mutation entries and transfer of such entries to the Record of Rights; (iii) this mandatory ;procedure has been violated in the present matter. No notice was given to any interested persons of any entry in the Register of Mutations inviting objections. Consequently no hearing was given on objections nor presumably could the Mutation Entry have been certified. Instead, the individual Records of Rights were directed to be amended without giving such notice, inviting objections and certifying the mutation entry. The petitioners came to know of this only through the Newspaper reports; (iv) the order of this Court dated 22nd June, 2005 did not authorize such a process. There was only a direction to the State of Maharashtra to complete the entire land records in the State of Maharashtra up to 31st May, 2006. Even the Circular dated 14th July, 2005 does not authorize or contemplate amendments to the Record of Rights without following the mandatory and statutory procedure prescribed under Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1956 and (v) in these circumstances, the amendments to the Record of Rights in the case of each individual plot are vitiated, ultra vires the provisions of Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1956 and void abinitio. Lastly, Mr.Khambata submits that the petition be made absolute.

69. Mr.P.K.Samdani appearing for the petitioners in Writ PetitionNo. 1722 of 2006 has also adopted the arguments of earlier Senior Counsel. He has pointed out the distinguishing features by relying upon the averments in writ petition and the affidavit (page 214). He submits that there is a clear distinction in as much as there are four notices which are subject matter of the writ petition, out of which 3 notices cover the land regarding which there is a mutation entry, however, pertaining to one land there is no entry in the revenue records. In other words there is no mutation entry.