Bombay High Court
Smt. Taibai Gamjya Choudhari vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Minister ... on 5 February, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Gauri Godse
2024:BHC-AS:7868
14-WP-4260.21.docx
Gayatri IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4260 OF 2021
Taibai Gamjya Bhoudhari ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra Thr. Minister
Revenue And Forest Dept. and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Balwant V. Salunkhe, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 5th FEBRUARY 2024
P.C.
1. This petition takes an exception to order dated 16 th June 2021
passed by the learned Revenue Minister in Revision Application filed
by respondent nos. 7 to 18. By the said order the judgment and order
dated 24th June 2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner has
been set aside and directions are issued to make inquiry regarding the
heirship of the said respondents and accordingly Tahsildar is directed
14-WP-4260.21.docx
to take appropriate steps. The said respondents had preferred
Revision before the learned Minister for challenging the order passed
by Additional Commissioner by which their Revision Application for
challenging order dated 17th February 2018 passed by the Additional
Collector was dismissed. Additional Collector had allowed two
separate appeals filed by petitioner and respondent no. 19 for
challenging Sub-Divisional Officer's ('SDO') order. Learned SDO had
decided RTS Appeal No. 143 of 2013 filed by the aforesaid
respondents for challenging Mutation Entry No. 665 in the name of the
present petitioner. By the said order, SDO had cancelled Mutation
Entry 665.
2. By order dated 13th July 2023 notice for final disposal at
admission stage was issued. Office remark shows that all the
respondents are served. However, none appears for the respondent
nos. 7 to 19. Learned AGP appears for respondent nos. 1 to 6. In view
of the aforesaid order, the petition is taken up for final disposal at
admission stage.
14-WP-4260.21.docx
3. The dispute between the parties is with respect to Mutation Entry
No. 665 certified in favour of the petitioner on 14 th August 1987. The
said Mutation Entry was challenged by the respondent nos. 7 to 18 by
filing an appeal before the SDO. SDO had allowed the appeal
preferred by the said respondents and cancelled Mutation Entry No.
665. Hence the petitioner had preferred an appeal before Additional
Collector. Respondent No. 19 who claims through the petitioner had
also filed a separate appeal before the Additional Collector. The
Additional Collector has allowed both the appeals, thus confirming the
Mutation Entry in favour of the petitioner. The said order was
challenged by aforesaid respondents by filing a Revision Application
before the Additional Commissioner. The said Revision Application
was dismissed, hence, they preferred second Revision before the
State Government. By the impugned order, the said second Revision
is allowed by the learned Minister and the earlier order passed by
Additional Commissioner is set aside. However, by the impugned
order, learned Tahsildar is directed to make enquiry on the heirship of
the aforesaid respondents and take appropriate action. Hence, the
14-WP-4260.21.docx
present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 7
had filed Special Civil Suit No. 292 of 1998 for partition and separate
possession claiming 1/4th share in the suit property. He submits that in
the said suit, Mutation Entry No. 665 was also challenged. He further
submits that respondent nos. 8 to 18 were parties to the said suit and
are claiming their rights in the suit property. He submits that the said
suit is dismissed on 29th August 2011. He further submits that the
respondent no. 7 has preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 16 of
2012 which is pending before the District Court, Kalyan.
5. He therefore submits that the claim of the said respondents
claiming rights in the suit property is dismissed by the Civil Court. He
thus submits that the claim of the said respondents is adjudicated.
Hence, the said respondents have no right to claim share in the suit
property and the Mutation Entry in favour of the petitioner requires to
be confirmed.
6. I have perused the papers as well as all the aforesaid orders. So
14-WP-4260.21.docx
far as the claim of partition and separate possession is concerned the
suit filed by respondent no. 7 is dismissed, however, the appeal is still
pending. Hence the claim of the said respondents with respect to the
suit property is still subjudiced.
7. By the impugned order, the learned Minister has only issued
directions to the Tahsildar to make enquiry with respect to the heirship
of the said respondents and take necessary steps. Thus, the order of
Additional Collector confirming the Mutation Entry No. 665 stands
confirmed. So far as the claim of the said respondents qua the title is
concerned, the same will be decided in the pending Civil Appeal before
the District Court.
8. By the impugned order directions are issued to make inquiry,
only regarding heirship of the said respondents. However, the
respective claims qua the title to the suit property shall be adjudicated
in the pending civil appeal. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere
with the impugned order. However, it is clarified that inquiry if any, on
the heirship of the said respondents shall not affect the petitioner's
right based on the Mutation Entry No. 665.
14-WP-4260.21.docx
9. With the aforesaid clarification, writ petition is disposed of.
GAYATRI RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA SHIMPI
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
SHIMPI Date:
2024.02.01
12:38:21 +0530
