Dhiman Nirmalendu Chakravarty vs The State Of Maha., Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3207 Bom

                                                                              wp6782.15
                                           1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                              
                              NAGPUR.

                   WRIT    PETITION     NO.    6782       OF      2015




                                                      
    Dhiman Nirmalendu Chakravarty,




                                                     
    aged 40 yrs. Occu. ....  R/o at 
    Flat No. 215, Laxmi Vaibhav
    Apartment, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur.                                PETITIONER.




                                         
                                         VERSUS
                             
    1] The State of Maharashtra
    through its Divisional Commissioner
    Nagpur Division Nagpur. 
                            
    2] The Tahsildar Nagpur (Rural)
    Mouza Lava, No. 4, Tal. Nagpur.

    3] Vishal Dilipsingh Verma 
      


    aged 40 yrs. Occu. Self employed.
   



    4] Rajkumari Dilipsingh Verma,
    aged ...  Occu. Household. 

    Respondent nos. 3 and 4 R/o

72, Hill Road, Ramnagar, Nagpur.

5] Harikisan Vitthaldasji Chandak, aged 40 yrs. Occu.

6] Ganesh Vitthaldasji Chandak,

aged 40 yrs. Occu.

    Respondent nos. 5 & 6 are R/o
    Arvi, Tal. & Distt. Wardha.                                    RESPONDENTS.


    Shri R. D. Dhande, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri S. B. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Shri P. D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

                                                                                          wp6782.15


                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.




                                                                                         
                               
                                      Dated    :   JUNE  24, 2016.




                                                                 
    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier the learned

counsel for the parties are heard at length by issuing Rule and making the

same returnable forthwith.

2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2015 passed

by the Additional Commissioner as well as the subsequent order dated

05.09.2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Nagpur (Rural) in proceedings under

Section 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short

the said Code).

3] The facts in brief are that, the petitioner claims to have purchased

2325 sq. ft land vide sale deed dated 31.12.2005. Pursuant to acquiring title

in the suit property the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar for

mutating his name as owner of the aforesaid property. The Naib Tahsildar by

order dated 15.04.2010 rejected said application on the ground that two civil

suits were pending in the Civil Court pertaining to the land in question. This

order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Sub

Divisional Officer. By order dated 12.02.2014 the appeal was allowed and

the Tahsildar was directed to follow the procedure prescribed by Sections 149

and 150 of the Code and take steps for mutating the names of the owners of

the land. Said order was challenged only by the respondent nos. 5 and 6

herein by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. This appeal

wp6782.15

came to be dismissed on 14.05.2015. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein

thereafter approached the Additional Commissioner and by order dated

27.07.2015 it was held by the Additional Commissioner that though the order

passed by the Additional Collector was legally correct, no decision be taken

with regard to the mutation entries till the civil suits were decided. As the

order passed by the Additional Collector was maintained the petitioner again

moved the Tahsildar in the said matter. The Tahsildar by order dated

05.09.2015 refused to take any steps in the matter of mutation on the ground

that the civil suits were pending.

4] Shri R. D. Dhande, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the revision application filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4

herein could not have been entertained by the Additional Commissioner.

According to him the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by which the

appeal filed by the petitioner came to be allowed was challenged only by the

respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 had accepted

the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Additional Collector had

maintained the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and therefore it was not

open for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to challenge the said order. He then

submitted that though the Additional Commissioner recorded a finding that

the order passed by the Additional Collector was in accordance with law, he

further directed that no mutation entries be taken during pendency of the

civil suit. He submitted that this direction was not sustainable considering

the law as laid down by this Court in Shrikant R. Sankanwar & Ors. Vs.

wp6782.15

Krishna Balu Naukudkar 2003 (2) Maharashtra law Journal 276. He

submitted that as per the title acquired on the basis of the registered sale

deed, the petitioner's name was required to be mutated. Even otherwise it

was submitted that pendency of the civil suits was not a bar to enter the

names of the title holders under Sections 149 and 150 of the Code.

5] Shri P. D. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for respondent

nos. 3 and 4 supported the impugned order. According to him the directions

issued by the Additional Commissioner of awaiting the outcome of the civil

suits was justified. He submitted that during the pendency of the civil suit

the petitioner had acquired title and hence it was not permissible to mutate

his name in the revenue records. In that regard he placed reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. G. Ashok Kumar Vs.

Govindammal and anr. (2010) 14 SCC 370.

Shri S. B. Ahirkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 also supported the impugned order by

relying upon the affidavit filed on record.

6] I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length. The

record indicates that it is the case of the petitioner that he has acquired title

to the property in question by virtue of sale deed dated 31.12.2005. The

record further indicates that Regular Civil Suit No. 713 of 2004 was pending

when the said sale deed was executed. Another Civil Suit bearing No. 459 of

2009 has been filed subsequently. The provisions of Section 149 and 150 of

the Code have been considered in Shrirant Sankanwar (supra). It has been

wp6782.15

held therein that when any right to immovable property is acquired, the same

is required to be reported to the revenue authorities who in turn have to

update the revenue records for the purpose of assessment of revenue and

collection thereof. It has been further observed that the mutation entries by

itself do not create any title in favour of any person with regard to immovable

property. In the present case the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated

12.04.2014 followed the aforesaid procedure and directed the Tahsildar to

take necessary steps in that regard. This direction was challenged only by the

respondent nos. 5 and 6. The Additional Collector rightly maintained these

directions. It was not open for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to have had

directly approached the Additional Commissioner when in fact they had

accepted the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and had not

challenged the same. Even otherwise when it was found by the Additional

Commissioner that the order passed by the Additional Collector was legal and

proper issuance of further directions to await the outcome of the civil suits

was not warranted.

7] As regards the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on which

reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4,

same pertains to creation of third party rights during pendency of a civil suit.

The ratio of aforesaid decision does not apply to the facts of the present case.

8] In view of aforesaid, it is clear that the Additional Commissioner

erred in restraining the revenue authorities from taking any steps in the

matter of entering mutation entries due to pendency of the civil suits. The

wp6782.15

directions as issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer were in accordance with

provisions of Section 149 and 150 of the Code. Any entries taken would

naturally be subject to the adjudication in the Civil Court which would have

bearing on the title of the parties.

9] In view of aforesaid the following order is passed:

1] The order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Additional

Commissioner and the subsequent order dated 05.09.2015 passed by the

Tahsildar are quashed and set aside.

2] The order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer stands restored and the Tahsildar shall taken necessary steps in terms

of aforesaid directions.

3] It would be open for the contesting parties to bring to the

notice of the revenue authorities the pendency of the civil suits and orders

passed therein. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.

JUDGE

svk

wp6782.15