Bombay High Court
Sudha Gajanan Kunte vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 August, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 901 wp 1718.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1718 OF 2014
Sudha wd/o Gajanan Kunte
Age: 76 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o 5-5-37, Osmanpura,
Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Through Deputy Director of Land Record,
Aurangabad.
2. The City Survey Office,
City Survey Officer,
Aurangabad.
3. The Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad,
Through Municipal Commissioner,
Aurangabad.
4. Mrs. Manasi w/o Arun Joshi,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Service,
R/o M-2-201, Sector 13,
Navi Mumbai.
5. Shriram s/o Gajanan Kunte,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Dhayadhan Apartment,
Opp. Gokhale Park-III,
Chinchwadgoan, Pune. ... Respondents
----
Mr. Milind M. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent-state.
----
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 10-08-2016.
2 901 wp 1718.14.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of the parties.
2. The petition is pending while the matter has been
coming up often before this court, there has been absence on
behalf of the respondents except learned AGP representing the
government authorities.
3. The petitioner contends that she is owner of the
property bearing CTS No. 14516/A-3 bearing Municipal House No.
5-5-37/P ad-measuring 282.6 sq.mtr situated in Kranti Chowk,
Aurangabad pursuant to a registered sale deed executed in favour
of her husband way back in 1978. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further refers to long lineage of transfers of said property
from various persons up to the registered sale deed to her husband
in 1978. He further points out that, after acquisition of ownership
over aforesaid property while it was Municipal Council then,
petitioner had applied for construction permission, however,
subsequently Municipal Council was converted in to Municipal
Corporation, as such, he had re-applied for construction permission,
which was duly granted and the construction over the property had
come up and completion certificate had also been issued in favour
3 901 wp 1718.14.odt
of her husband by municipal corporation. Learned counsel further
points out that, even the State government had recovered non-
agricultural charges with penalty from her husband in respect of
said property. He submits that, however, since his possession and
residence over the property was being interfered with and
obstructed, the husband forced to move a civil action against the
corporation by way of regular civil suit no. 126 of 2010 which came
to be duly decreed restraining corporation from causing any
obstruction to the possession of plaintiff over the property without
following due course of law.
4. Learned counsel further contends that, while the
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad who was also holding an
additional charge of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation as an
Acting Commissioner of the Corporation suddenly had directed to
suspend the entries in respect of ownership in the PR card of survey
no. 54. Learned counsel submits that, land survey no. 54 comprises
various pieces of land under different city survey numbers one of
which is the petitioners property having devolved on her through
husband along with respondents no. 4 and 5. Apprehending threat
to the rights, a writ petition had been filed before this court bearing
no. 257 of 2009, the division bench of the high court had directed
not to act upon suspended entries till petitioner is granted
opportunity and hearing in accordance with law and status quo was
4 901 wp 1718.14.odt
directed to be maintained. Accordingly, petitioner along with several
similarly affected persons under the order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad/Acting Commissioner of Municipal
Corporation against his order of directing suspension of the entries
in P.R. card of survey no. 54 had approached the Superintendent of
Land Records, Aurangabad. The superintendent of land records had
confirmed the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner/the
Acting Commissioner of Municipal Corporation. Aggrieved by said
order passed by Superintendent of Land Records, the other owners
over C.T.S. No. 54 had approached Deputy Director of Land
Records, Aurangabad. Their appeals have been allowed and the
matter is now pending before the revisional authority at the
instance of respondent no.3, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. In
petitioner's case there had been delay of about 32 days in
approaching the Deputy Director of Land Record. Delay condonation
application of the petitioner had been initially rejected by Deputy
Director of Land Record against which the petitioner were required
to approach this court under writ petition no. 6078 of 2011. The
high court had set aside the order rejecting delay condonation
imposing cost of Rs.1000/- on the petitioner, directing the Deputy
Director of Land Record to decide the appeal of the petitioner on
merits.
5. Accordingly appeal came be to be numbered as no.
5 901 wp 1718.14.odt
1212 of 2011 before the Deputy Director of Land Record. However,
under operative order the Deputy Director of Land Record refused
to pass any effective order getting bogged down under a
consideration that, since the matters in respect of land survey
no.54 are pending before the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) it would
not be appropriate to pass orders and as such the matter was
disposed of without any orders further directing the petitioner to
approach the state under revision for redressal of his grievance.
6.
Learned counsel states that, while the same authority in
respect of similarly situated persons had decided on merits in
favour of the appellants, the petitioners case in spite of directions of
the high court, instead of being decided as per the order of the high
court, the Deputy Director of Land Record has erroneously declined
to pass orders on merits. He submits that, this would cause grave
prejudice to the petitioner. Before the revisional authority, the
petitioner would be forced to make an approach where as the
things are otherwise since on merits, the petitioner's case being
similar to the cases of other appellants whose appeals have been
decided by Deputy Director of Land Record in their favour, petitioner
is entitled to similar kind of treatment.
7. Having regard to submissions and further that, there is
no particular resistance to aforesaid, having regard to the facts as
6 901 wp 1718.14.odt
has been narrated hereinabove it appears that it would be
expedient that, the Deputy Director of Land Record decides on the
appeal as had been filed by the petitioner against the order of
Superintendent of Land Records on merits as had been directed by
this court in writ petition no. 6078 of 2011. The request under the
writ petition, under the circumstances appears to be legitimate, as
such, impugned order stands set aside. The parties are relegated
again to Deputy Director of Land Record for decision on appeal as
directed under writ petition 6078 of 2011. Writ petition accordingly
stands allowed. Rule is made absolutely accordingly in aforesaid
terms.
8. The appeal of the petitioner be decided as early as
possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of. Learned
counsel for the petitioner states that, petitioner would cause
appearance before the appellate authority on 23-08-2016.
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
JUDGE
mub
