Abdul Rafiq Sheikh Amir vs The Collector, Chandrapur And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4252 Bom

                                                                                       wp6900.13.odt

                                                     1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                WRIT PETITION NO.6900/2013

     PETITIONER:                Abdul Rafiq Sheikh Amir, 
                                Aged : 46 years, R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, 
                                Tah. Ballarpur, District Chandrapur.

                                                ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS:     1.  The Collector, Chandrapur District, Maharashtra.
                                      
                                 2.  Sub-Registrar of Documents, Ballarpur
                                      Tah., Office at Mulchandani Complex, 
                                      Main Road, Opp. Bus Stand, about Hotel
                                      Square Point, Ballarpur, District Chandrapur.
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri R.P. Joshi, Counsel for the petitioner 
                       Shri H.R. Dhumale, AGP for the respondents 
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                                      ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : 10.07.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated

23.2.2004 to the extent of the requirement of prior permission of the

Collector, Chandrapur before the sale of plot in Survey No.31/79 of

Mouza Ballarpur.

According to the petitioner, the owner of the land Laxman

Dago Kulmethe was granted permission to convert the land into

non-agricultural use. The said land was converted into non-agricultural

use and the petitioner purchased a plot in the said layout on 1.3.2004.

wp6900.13.odt

The petitioner approached the Collector, Chandrapur as well as the Sub

Registrar at Ballarpur for registration of the sale-deed but the authorities

informed the petitioner that the sale-deed would be registered only if the

petitioner secures the No Objection Certificate from the Collector after

depositing 50% of the market value as per ready reckoner. The petitioner

has challenged the said action of the respondent in the instant petition

and has sought a direction against the respondents to register the

sale-deed without seeking the No Objection Certificate.

Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that

the issue involved in this writ petition was also involved in Writ Petition

No.3649/2009 and others and this Court has, by relying on the judgment

in the case of M/s. Sundarsons and others...Versus...State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in 2008 (6) AIR Bombay Reporter

378 allowed the said writ petitions by the judgment dated 29.8.2009 and

has directed the Registrar to register the sale-deeds by following the

procedure under the Registration Act without insisting on the production

of the No Objection Certificate. It is stated that by relying on the said

judgment this Court has allowed Writ Petition No.199/2010 by the

judgment, dated 16.2.2010.

Shri Dhumale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents does not dispute the position of law as laid

wp6900.13.odt

down in the judgment, reported in 2008 (6) AIR Bombay Reporter 378

and the two aforesaid unreported judgments of this Court. It is submitted

that like in the judgment in Writ Petition No.3649/2009 and others, the

issue whether the petitioner is the owner of the land and whether the

predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was holding 'B' Tenure land or

'Bhumiswami' land should be kept open.

Since the issue involved in this case stands answered in

favour of the petitioner by the aforesaid judgments, for the reasons

recorded in the judgment, reported in 2008 (6) AIR Bombay Reporter

378, the writ petition is partly allowed. Since the sale-deed is already

registered in the name of the petitioner, in view of the interim orders

passed by this Court, nothing is required to be done in the matter any

further. It is however made clear that it would be open for the State

Government to take such steps, if it is found that the petitioner or his

predecessor-in-title has breached any of the conditions of the allotment. It

is further made clear that the issue whether the petitioner is the owner of

the land or whether the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was holding

'B' Tenure land or 'Bhumiswami' land is kept open.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                     JUDGE                                                                JUDGE
     Wadkar