Bombay High Court
Sau. Vanita W/O. Diwakar Shukla ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 13 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 3060/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3060/2016
1. Sau. Vanita W/o Diwakar Shukla
Age 35 years, Occ. Household.
2. Diwakar S/o Vasantrao Shukla
Age 40 years, Occ. - advocate.
Both R/o Civil Lines, Paratwada,
Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of
Land Records, Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.I. Jagirdar, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 13
TH JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
WP 3060/16 2 Judgment
2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the communication
of the respondent No.3, dated 14.12.2015 demanding 'No Objection
Certificate' from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur before recording the
mutation entry.
3. The petitioners purchased a plot of land from their vendor by
a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2013. After purchasing the property
on 13.02.2013, by an application dated 16.01.2015, the petitioners
applied to the concerned authorities under the provisions of Section 149
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for mutating their name in the
revenue records. By the impugned order, the Deputy Superintendent of
Land Records directed the petitioners to produce a No Objection
Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur. The petitioners
have impugned the said order in the instant petition.
4. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records has no authority to seek the No
Objection Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur before
mutating the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. It is stated
that when such No Objection Certificates were sought by the authorities,
this Court had set aside the said orders on the ground that the authorities
did not have the jurisdiction to do so. The learned Counsel for the
petitioners has relied on some unreported judgments and orders of this
WP 3060/16 3 Judgment
Court to substantiate his submission. It is further stated that the State
Government cannot rely on the provisions of Section 37-A of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as they were brought into effect after
the petitioners had purchased the property by the registered sale deed, on
13.02.2013.
5. Shri Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records had probably sought the No Objection
Certificate on the basis of the amended provisions of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code. It is stated that such a certificate would be
necessary in respect of the sale deeds executed after the amended
provisions were brought on the statute book. It is submitted that Section
37-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was brought into effect on
03.03.2015 and the petitioners appear to have purchased the property on
13.02.2013. It is stated that in view of the proviso to Section 37-A, the
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 37-A would not apply to the sale,
transfer or re-development of the property effected before 03.03.2015. It
is stated that the proviso stipulates that the provisions of sub-section (1)
of Section 37-A are not retrospective. It is fairly stated that since the
petitioners had purchased the land by a registered sale deed on
13.02.2013, the provisions of Section 37-A of the Code may not apply to
the petitioners.
WP 3060/16 4 Judgment
6. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the provisions of Section 37-A of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, it appears that the Deputy Superintendent of Land
Records was not justified in refusing to mutate the name of the
petitioners in the revenue records for not producing the No Objection
Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur. It is clear from the
orders passed by this Court from time to time that the respondents had no
authority in law to seek the No Objection Certificate. The provisions of
Section 37-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are brought into
effect from 03.03.2015 and since the provisions of Section 37-A(1) are
not retrospective in operation, the Deputy Superintendent of Land
Records could not have sought the No Objection Certificate when the
petitioners had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated
13.02.2013.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
