Bombay High Court
Kamalakar Patloji Mule vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 January, 2018
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 WP 5237.1995 .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 5237 OF 1995
1. Kamlakar s/o Patloji Muley,
Age. Major, Occ. Service,
R/o. Patloji Wada, Behind Post
Office Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
2. Prabhakar S/o Patloji Muley,
Age. Major, Occ. Service,
R/o. As above.
3. Madhukar S/o Patloji Muley,
Age. Major, Occ. Service,
R/o. As above. ..Peti..
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
(Copy to be served on Govt.
Pleader High Court of Judicature of
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad).
2. Suryakant S/o Vidyadhar Muley,
Age. Major, Occ. Service,
R/o. Pitrachhaya Building, Behind
Post Office, Jalna.
(abated)
3. Chadrakalabai W/o Namdeo Gaikwad,
Age. Major, Occ. Service,
R/o. Cantonment, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Taramatibai W/o Vinayakrao Sabale,
Age. Major, Occ. Household,
R/o. Near SCR Running Room Quarters,
Vinayakrao Sabale,
Diesel Engine Driver, Railway Station
Khandva, (Madhya Pradesh)
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:35:18 :::
2 WP 5237.1995 .odt
5. Sindhubai W/o Francis Johan,
Age. 35 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Limaye Bunglow, Chinda,
Mala, Opp. Choda Nasik Road,
Nasik, Dist. Nasik.
(abated)
6. Kum. Shobha Vidyadhar Muley,
Age. Major, Occ. Teacher,
R/o. Limaye Bunglow Chind-Mala,
Nashik Road, Nasik.
7. Smt. Pushpabai W/o Ashok Natekar,
Age. 28 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Railways quarter Nasik road,
Nasik, Railway Station, Nasik. ...Resp..
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri V C Patil h/f S M Godasay.
AGP for Respondents: Mr S P Tiwari
Advocate for Respondents : Shri S R Deshpande.
Petition abated as against R/2, 5.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
...
Reserved on January 12, 2018.
Pronounced on January 25, 2018.
...
JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy
Director of Land Records dated 31.1.1976 the petitioner
has preferred this writ petition.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition
are as follows :-
3 WP 5237.1995 .odt
a] The property in dispute bearing CTS No.3924 was
originally owned and possessed by Patloji Mule, the
father of the petitioners and grand father of respondent
No.2. Said Patloji Muley was having four sons and eight
daughters and all these daughters got married. The
eldest son of the Patloji Muley is no more and died long
back. Said Patloji also died on 27.6.1957.
b] The disputed property was having municipal
house nos.1-34-64, 1-34-65, 1-34-66 recorded in the
name of Patloji Muley in the Municipal Record of
Municipal Council, Jalna. According to the petitioners,
after death of Patloji all the sons and daughters of the
deceased Patloji became the owner of the disputed
property.
c] The Special District Inspector of Land Records and
inquiry officer has conducted the survey of the
properties within the municipal limits of the Jalna in
the year 1975. In the said survey, by order dated
20.11.1975 said Special Inspector of the Land Record
declared that disputed property is owned and possessed
4 WP 5237.1995 .odt
by the petitioners, the deceased Vidyadhar and eight
daughters of Patloji. Consequently, names of all four
brothers and eight sisters have been recorded in the
municipal record and 'Sanad' to that effect was also
prepared in their names.
d] After this decision of the Special District Inspector
of Land Record, deceased Vidydhar in collusion with the
officers of D.I.L.R. office, Jalna and with a malafide
intention to grab the suit property has filed one deed of
declaration stating therein that he himself is the only
owner of the property and there are no shares in the
property. On receipt of this deed, the Special District
Inspector of Land Records, Jalna, has revived his own
order dated 20.11.1975 as referred above without giving
any notice to the petitioners and other concerned
persons and by his decision dated 31.1.1976 deleted the
names of the petitioners and the sisters and recorded
name of deceased Vidyadhar only with regard to the
disputed property. Being aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the
Special Superintendent of Land Records, Jalna bearing
5 WP 5237.1995 .odt
appeal no.65/1988. During the pendency of the said
appeal, deceased Vidyadhar Mule died on 11.6.1988 and
as such his legal heirs brought on record, who are the
respondents herein. The Superintendent of Land
Records allowed said appeal and set aside the order
dated 31.1.1976 and confirmed the earlier order dated
20.11.1975. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has also
instituted suit bearing suit No.63/1991 against the
petitioners and respondent nos. 3 to 7 herein before the
Civil Judge S.D. Jalna.
e] Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent nos.
2 to 7 herein preferred Appeal bearing No.317/1991
before the Deputy Director of Land Records,
Aurangabad and upon hearing the parties on 27.3.1995,
the Deputy Director was pleased to allow the appeal of
the respondents by his order dated 23.6.1995 and set
aside the order under appeal and confirmed the order
dated 31.1.1976. Thus, names of the petitioners and
their sisters have been ordered to be deleted and names
of the respondent nos. 2 to 7 have been allowed to be
recorded being heirs of deceased Vidyadhar. Being
6 WP 5237.1995 .odt
aggrieved by the decision given by the Deputy Director
of Land Records, the petitioner filed Revision before the
State Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya and even though the petitioners have
attended certain dates, later on it was revealed that file
of the petitioners is missing and same was not traced
out. Thus, the petitioners have approached this court
by filing present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the special District Inspector of the Land Records has
not followed the procedure as laid down in section 258
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and also not
followed the principles of natural justice. Said authority
has not called upon the petitioners while reviving his
own order. The Deputy Director of Land Records has
also lost sight over this important aspect of law as well
as facts. Learned counsel submits that the alleged deed
submitted by deceased Vidyadhar has no evidentiary
value and it cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel
submits that, admittedly property in dispute was owned
and possessed by deceased Patloji Muley and after his
7 WP 5237.1995 .odt
death it should devolve on the legal heirs of deceased
Patloji. The Deputy Director of Land record has also
erred in concluding that the partition between the
parties was effected during the life time of deceased
Patloji in the year 1958 and the disputed property was
given to the share of deceased Vidyadhar. Learned
counsel submits that, this conclusion was based on
wrong assumption, misconception.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that, the
Deputy Director of Land Record has rightly allowed the
appeal of the respondents and set aside the order
passed in the appeal by the Special District Inspector of
Land Records, Jalna and the order dated 31.1.1976
passed by the Special District Inspector of Land
Records, Jalna in review was confirmed. There is no
substance in this writ petition and writ petition is thus
liable to be dismissed.
5. On careful perusal of the judgment and order
passed by the authorities below, it appears that,
deceased Patloji expired in or about 1957. Before his
8 WP 5237.1995 .odt
death he had made arrangement of his property by
dividing the same amongst himself for his own benefit
and that of his daughters and his two sons namely
Vidyadhar father of respondent nos. 2 to 7 and
petitioner no.1 Kamlakar. Said Vidyadhar and petitioner
No.1 Kamlakar are the sons of Patloji's first wife who
died long back. Deceased Patloji allotted CTS No.3924
situated at Jalna to deceased Vidyadhar exclusively.
Petitioner no.1 Kamlakar sold his lands allotted to him
by the father in the year 1957 itself. He returned to
Jalna in the year 1984 and deceased Vidyadhar had
given him two rooms for residence out of love and
affection. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand have
been given movables consisting of cash and ornaments
through their mother Savitribai. Since there was no
marriage between Patloji and Savitribai, Patloji did not
give them any share in his immovable property.
Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand secured a
portion of the disputed house and land for residence
from the real owner deceased Vidyadhar by executing a
rent note dated 1.5.1982. Even, petitioner no.2 also
made an application to Municipal Council, Jalna while
9 WP 5237.1995 .odt
securing water Tap connection on 19.10.1983 stating
therein that the disputed house no.1-34-62 wherein
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are residing as tenants belonging
to deceased Vidyadhar Muley. Thus, the disputed
property was accordingly mutated in the name of
deceased Vidyadhar alone and after his death in the
name of respondent nos. 2 to 7 by the competent
authority. It is thus clear from the documents placed
on record that the suit property bearing Municipal
house no.1-3464, 1-34-65, and 1-34-66 now allotted
with CTS No.3924 originally belonging to Patloji and
even his life time, the same was allotted to his son
Vidyadhar Patloji Muley in whose favour entries in
Municipal Record and City Survey Record have been
made since the year 1358 Fasli (1949-1950 A.D.),
property tax, water tax and other taxes have been paid
by deceased Vidyadhar alone as exclusive owner thereof.
6. In view of the above I do not find any substance in
the writ petition. The Deputy Director of Land record
has rightly considered the documents on record. I do
not find any reason to interfere in the same. Hence,
10 WP 5237.1995 .odt
following order.
O R D E R
1. Writ Petitions is hereby dismissed.
2. In the circumstances, there shall be no order
as to costs.
sd/-
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
AAA/-
