The Pachora Taluka Shikshan ... vs Additional Commissioner, Nashik ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 156 Bom

                                             1




                                                                              
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                      
                             WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2013

    The Pachora Taluka Shikshan Sanstha Maryadit
    Pachora, Tq. Pachora,




                                                     
    Dist. Jalgaon,
    Through its Chairman
    Mr.Sanjay Onkar Wagh,
    Age-44 years, Occu-Agriculturist,




                                            
    R/o Ring Road, Pachora,                                       PETITIONER
    Tq.Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon 
    VERSUS 
    1. Additional Commissioner,
                               
        Nasik Division Nashik,
                              
    2. Additional Collector,
        Jalgaon District, Jalgaon,

    3. Sub Divisional Officer,
      


        Pachora Sub Division, Pachora,
        Dist. Jalgaon
   



    4. Pachora Municipal Council,
        Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon,
        Through its Chief Officer                    RESPONDENTS

Mr.M.S.Deshmukh h/f Mr.D.B.Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.B.Thoke, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr.V.S.Badakh, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 29/02/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

khs/Feb.2016/2626-d

2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at

length. In the light of the order that I intend to pass considering the

peculiar facts of the case and in the light of the judgments of this

Court in the matter of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and others Vs.

Krishna Balu Naukudkar, [2003(3) Bom.C.R. 45] and Bansrajidevi

Bhuval Singh, Ramniranjan Singh and Others Vs. Byramjee

Jeejeebhoy Pvt.Ltd., and others, [2006(6) BCR 51], I am not required

to advert to the entire submissions of the learned Advocates.

3. From the submissions of the respective sides, it appears that

the land S.No.47/2 is an agricultural land which is said to have been

purchased by the petitioner on 31/12/1971. A mutation entry No.

3605 was effected and relevant entries in the records of rights were

made on 20/03/1972. The said entries were certified by the Revenue

Authorities on 23/04/1972.

4. On 15/03/1993, mutation entry No.4194 was effected in

relation to land survey No.47/2 in the name of the respondent No.4

Pachora Municipal Council. This entry was certified on 28/05/1996.

5. The petitioner contends that as it noticed the change that has

occurred on account of the mutation entry dated 15/03/1993, that it

khs/Feb.2016/2626-d

preferred a RTS Revision Appl.No.42/2005 which was rejected by

order dated 19/05/2006 primarily on the ground of delay. The RTS

Appeal No.80/2006 preferred by the petitioner u/s 247 of the

M.L.R.Code was partly allowed and the matter was remitted back to

respondent No.3 / Authority for reconsideration on the basis of the

record.

6.

Grievance of the petitioner is that, by order dated 30/09/2008,

respondent No.3 confirmed the order dated 19/05/2006. The

petitioner preferred a RTS Appeal No.5/2009, which has been

dismissed by order dated 25/06/2010. The litigation continued in

between the parties till RTS Revision No.164/2011 was dismissed by

order dated 20/10/2012.

7. The petitioner, therefore, submits that when there was no

evidence before the revenue authorities with regard to the creation of

rights on the property at issue in favour of respondent No.4, the

revenue authorities could not have confirmed the mutation entry

dated 15/03/1993 on a suspicious resolution said to have been

passed subsequently on 16/07/1993. Mr.Deshmukh, learned

Advocate for the petitioner, therefore, submits that this petition

deserves to be allowed.

khs/Feb.2016/2626-d

8. Mr.Thoke, learned Advocate for respondent No.4 vehemently

submits that this case involves an issue of exchange of lands by the

petitioner and respondent No.4 interse. Pursuant to the exchange of

lands, the petitioner has erected a school and a playground on the

portion of the land possessed by it, way back in 1986. Respondent

No.4 has constructed a water tank on the land which is in its

possession and intends to proceed with certain developmental

activities on the said land. He, therefore, submits that this petition

deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for

the respective sides.

10. This Court in the Shrikant Sankanwar case (supra) has

concluded that mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and are

utilized for recovery of taxes and for taxation. They neither create

any right or title nor any interest in favour of any person. Ultimately

it is the Civil Court which decides the rights of the parties. Mutation

entries carried out by Revenue Officers are subject to the result of

civil proceedings and not vice-a-versa. It is also concluded that the

revenue authorities are expected to consider the best evidence

acceptable in Law while causing mutation entries or for altering such

khs/Feb.2016/2626-d

entries. Similar is the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of

Bansirajidevi Bhuval Singh (supra).

11. In my view, since the very aspect of exchange of lands thereby

resulting in the creation of rights on the exchanged lands in favour of

the petitioner and respondent No.4 is at issue, which is a disputed

issue and which cannot be gone into by revenue authorities, whose

authority is restricted to the extent of making mutation entries, it

would be appropriate that the petitioner and respondent No.4 /

Municipal Council get their rights decided through civil proceedings.

The petitioner submits that it is intending of filing a civil suit /

initiating civil proceedings in the nearest future.

12. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed with the

following directions :-

[a] In the event the petitioner initiates appropriate proceedings in respect of its rights on land Survey No. 47/2 admeasuring 1

Hectre 85 R within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today, the mutation entries at issue, especially the entry dated 15/03/1993 which is certified on 28/05/1996, shall be subject to the result of the civil suit.

[b] Status-quo, as existing today, shall be maintained by the litigating sides for a period of 5 (five) months so as to enable

khs/Feb.2016/2626-d

the petitioner to prefer an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC considering the contention / apprehension that

respondent No.4 is likely to initiate developmental activities on the said land.

[c] In the event such a suit is preferred within 6 (six) weeks from

today by the petitioner, the Trial Court shall decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 of The CPC after hearing the litigating sides within a period of 3 (three) months from

the date of filing of the suit or 6 (six) weeks from today,

whichever is earlier and shall decide the said application on its own merits without being influenced by the order of

status-quo passed by this Court today.

[d] In the event the petitioner fails to file a suit within 6 (six) weeks, as observed above, this protection being granted by this Court shall stand vacated after 6 (six) weeks from today.

[e] Needless to state, that the civil Court would be deciding the

right, title and interest of the litigating sides in the property at issue and all revenue entries / mutation entries shall be subject to the result of such suit.

13. Rule is made partly absolute in the light of the above

directions.

14. Pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed

of.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/Feb.2016/2626-d