Bombay High Court
Suvarnamala Shivajirao Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:4939-DB
6-WP-1493-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2024
Suvarnamala Shivajirao Jadhav
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through
The Secretary and Others
...
Ms. M. P. Patel, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for Respondents - State
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ
DATE : MARCH 04, 2024
PER COURT :
1. There are peculiar facts before us. The
property at issue is located at plot no. 5 in survey
no. 49 situated at Khadgaon, Tq and District Latur
bearing municipal house no. 3998. The Petitioner
purchased eastern half of the property vide sale deed
no. 1671/1998 on 23.06.1998 and the western half of the
property vide sale deed no. 991/2002 dated 28.03.2002.
The name of the Petitioner was recorded as the owner
and possessor of the suit property vide mutation entry
no. 2048 dated 30.10.2005. However, a bogus and
illegal sale deed of the suit property using the power
of attorney drawn by the Petitioner was made by one
Vijay Kumar Sonawane in favour of Sushila Sonawane and
6-WP-1493-2024.odt
got the mutation corrected in the revenue record vide
mutation entry no. 7578 dated 20.03.2012 and the
earlier mutation entry in the name of the Petitioner
was cancelled.
2. The Petitioner approached the Civil Court in
RCA No. 230/2012 only seeking declaration of ownership
and perpetual injunction. A prayer for setting aside
the mutation entry by seeking an order that the sale
deed is bad in law and not binding on the Petitioner,
was not made. By judgment dated 17.12.2018, the Civil
Court decreed the suit while declaring the Petitioner
as the owner of the said property. An observation is
made in paragraph 21 that the sale deed is not legal.
In paragraph 23, the power of attorney, is said to be
a bogus document. However, as the Petitioner did not
seek a declaration, the trial Court did not pass an
order declaring that the sale deed is illegal, not
binding upon the Petitioner. The Appeal preferred by
the original defendants in RCA No. 11/2019 was
dismissed by judgment dated 24.12.2021. The Appellate
Court also declared the Petitioner to be owner and
possessor of the property and confirmed the perpetual
6-WP-1493-2024.odt
injunction.
3. The Petitioner approached the SDO, Latur with
a representation dated 30.07.2021 praying for
cancellation of the mutation entry no. 7573. The said
Authority has replied to the Petitioner vide
communication dated 05.07.2021 that she should approach
the Appellate Authority for seeking an order of
cancellation of the earlier mutation entry made by the
SDO, Latur with reference to Gut No. 49/2/B.
4. The Original Defendants are not before the
Court since they have not been arrayed as Respondents.
5. We are of the view that because of lack of
appropriate advise, from the legal representative
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner before the Civil
Court, for seeking a declaration that the sale deed be
hold as null and void, we cannot allow the revenue
authorities to make the Petitioner run from pillar to
post. In normal circumstances, whoever is armed with a
registered sale deed, can approach the authorities for
change in the mutation entries which are purely for
fiscal purpose (Read Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors vs
6-WP-1493-2024.odt
Krishna Balu Naukudkar, 2003 (3) Bom.CR 45 ). The
competent authority in such circumstances is not
justified in directing the said person to approach a
Superior Authority under Section 247 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short "MLRC"). What is
expected is that a notice will be issued to the
erstwhile owners and after verifying the records, a new
mutation entry can be carried out on the basis of
sufficient material.
6. In the case in hand, the Petitioner has a
judgment and decree of the Civil Court, which is
confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Petitioner
contends that she has no knowledge that the original
Defendants have approached this Court by filing a
second appeal. The learned AGP submits that the
defendants have filed Second Appeal (Stamp) No.
17762/202.
7. In view of the above, this Petition is
disposed off. We, grant liberty to the Petitioner to
avail of the remedy as is permitted under the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights and Registers
6-WP-1493-2024.odt
(Preparation and Maintenance) Rules, 1971 and on the
basis of the judgment of the trial Court. The concerned
authority shall initiate appropriate steps by giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the
stakeholders. Needless to state, such exercise is to be
undertaken only if there is no other legal impediment
or an order of this Court in the pending Second Appeal
(Stamp) No. 17762/2021.
(R. M. JOSHI, J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)
Malani
