Bombay High Court
Ali Akbar Jafari vs Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 October, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:40060
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.221 OF 2021.
Vanessa De Souza,
Office No.206, Akbar Radiant Plaza,
327, M. G. Road, Pune-411 001. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director Mr. Niranjan L. Hiranandani
Registered Office: 514, Dhalmal Towers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021,
2. Ali Akbar Jafari
Office No.203, Akbar Radiant Plaza,
327, M. G. Road, Pune-411001,
3.Hiraman Tukaram Khandve,
r/o 105, Santnagar, Lohgaon,
A/P &Taluka Haveli, District Pune,
Maharashtra.
4. Hemant Bagareddy Motadoo,
r/o Bungalow No. 10, East Street,
Pune Cantonment, Pune-4 1 1001,
Maharashtra
5. Deepak Tukaram Khandve,
rlo 105, Santnagar, Lohgaon,
A/P& Taluka Haveli, District Pune.
Maharashtra Kamgar Talathi,
6. Kamgar Talathi,
Charholi Budruk, Tahsil Haveli,
District Pune, Maharashtra
1 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
7.Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli,
Near Alpabachat Bhavan,
Behind Divisional Revenue Commissioner's Office.
Old Vidhan Bhavan Building,
Pune-411 001, Maharashtra
8.Additional Collector, Pune,
Office of Pune District Collectorate,
Near Sasoon Hospital & Central Building.
Pune-41 1001. Maharashtra
9. Additional Commissioner, Pune,
Divisional Revenue Commissioner's Office,
Old Vidhan Bhavan Building,
Pune-411001, Malharashtra
10.Revenue Minister (2nd Revisional Authority).
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
Maharashtra ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2690 OF 2022.
Ali Akbar Jafari
Office No.203, Akbar Radiant Plaza,
327, M. G. Road, Pune-411 001. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director Mr. Niranjan L. Hiranandani
Registered Office: 514, Dhalmal Towers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021,
2. Ali Akbar Jafari
2 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
Office No.203, Akbar Radiant Plaza,
327, M. G. Road, Pune-411001,
3.Hiraman Tukaram Khandve,
r/o 105, Santnagar, Lohgaon,
A/P &Taluka Haveli, District Pune,
Maharashtra.
4. Hemant Bagareddy Motadoo,
r/o Bungalow No. 10, East Street,
Pune Cantonment, Pune-4 1 1001,
Maharashtra
5. Deepak Tukaram Khandve,
rlo 105, Santnagar, Lohgaon,
A/P& Taluka Haveli, District Pune.
Maharashtra Kamgar Talathi,
6. Kamgar Talathi,
Charholi Budruk, Tahsil Haveli,
District Pune, Maharashtra
7.Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli,
Near Alpabachat Bhavan,
Behind Divisional Revenue Commissioner's Office.
Old Vidhan Bhavan Building,
Pune-411 001, Maharashtra
8.Additional Collector, Pune,
Office of Pune District Collectorate,
Near Sasoon Hospital & Central Building.
Pune-41 1001. Maharashtra
9. Additional Commissioner, Pune,
Divisional Revenue Commissioner's Office,
Old Vidhan Bhavan Building,
Pune-411001, Malharashtra
3 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
10.Revenue Minister (2nd Revisional Authority).
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
Maharashtra ...Respondents.
------------
Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b Mr. Siddheshwar Namdev Biradar for the Petitioner.
In WP No.221-2021
Mr. Kishor Patil a/w. Mr. Anuj Gaikar i/b Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar for the
Petitioner in WP No.2690/2022.
Ms. Deepa Pohuja i/b J. Law & Assoc. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sachin Gite for Respondent
Nos.3 to 5.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for respondent-State.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 13th August, 2024.
Pronounced on : 9th October, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the
parties waive notice. Both Petitions were heard finally with consent.
2. The Petitions take exception to the order dated 29 th December,
2020 passed by the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry for
Revenue and orders passed by the subordinate authorities in revenue
proceedings leading to the filing of the Revision Application before the
State Government. Common submissions were advanced and hence
both Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No 221 of 2021 claims to have
purchased the subject land from the Respondent No 2- Ali Akbar Jafari,
who is the Petitioner in the connected Writ Petition No 2690 of 2022 by
registered sale deed. The Respondent No 1 in both the Petitions claims
to have acquired development rights from Ali Akbar Jafari in respect of
the subject property. The proceedings arise out of challenge to the
Mutation Entry No 15406 certified in favour of Petitioner in Writ
Petition No 221 of 2021 and Mutation Entry No 15166 certified in
favour of Petitioner in Writ Petition No 2690 of 2022.
CASE PLEADED IN WRIT PETITION NO 221 of 2021:
4. The Respondent No.2 is either the owner or registered Power of
Attorney holder from land owners being land admeasuring 180 Acres
situated at Charholi Budruk, District Pune. bearing Gat No.118
admeasuring 5 Hectors 35 R situated at village Charholi, Taluka Haveli
District Pune. The land was originally owned by one Bhaskar Raghunath
Munde who sold the same to respondent 2 by two registered sale
deeds dated 16th December 1994. Accordingly, mutation entry
No.10902 and 10903 were certified in favour of Respondent No 2.
5. On 1st April, 2004, the Respondent No 1, Respondent No 2 and
M/s. Radiant Builders, partnership firm of Respondent No 2 executed a
Memorandum of Understanding alongwith Power of Attorney by which
5 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
Respondent No.1 agreed to take over the existing loan liabilities of
Respondent No 2 and M/s Radiant Builders and to develop the subject
land. Respondent No 2 vide legal notice dated 19th February, 2009
published in newspaper terminated the MOU and revoked the Power
of Attorney.
6. On 18th October 2012, the subject property was sold by
Respondent No 2 to the Petitioner by registered sale deed and
accordingly mutation entry No.15406 was certified on 28th March, 2013.
Respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.1450 of 2012 in the Civil
Court seeking specific performance of the development agreement
and cancellation of the sale deed dated 18 th October 2012 along with
interim application for temporary injunction.
7. In the year 2015, Respondent No.1 challenged the Mutation
Entry No 15406 by filing RTS Appeal No.331 of 2013 before the Sub
Divisional Officer under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, 1966 (for short, MLRC), which came to be allowed vide order
dated 3rd August 2015. As against this the Petitioner filed RTS Second
Appeal No.462 of 2015 before the Additional Collector which was
dismissed vide order dated 30th May 2016. Revision came to be
preferred before the Additional Commissioner being Revision
Application No.194 of 2016 which also was dismissed by the order
dated 25th September 2017. Second Revision Application was filed
6 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
under Section 257 of MLRC on 5 th November 2017. On 16 th February
2018, the then Honourable Revenue Minister directed the parties to
file written arguments within 15 days and the proceedings were
closed. On 7th October 2020, notice was issued for hearing to be held
on 16th October 2020. On 16th October 2020, the Petitioner submitted
an application for adjournment. On 4 th November 2020, Advocate for
the Petitioner submitted an application for getting certified copy of
the records since the papers were misplaced. On 29th December 2020
impugned order came to be passed dismissing the Revision.
CASE PLEADED IN WRIT PETITION NO 2690 OF 2022:
8. The subject matter of the Petition is land bearing Survey No 77,
78/1, 79, 92/1, 93/1 at Charholi, District Pune. The Petitioner herein is
Respondent No 2 in the connected Petition. The pleadings as regards
execution of MOU with Respondent No.1 and termination of the same
are identical as in the connected petition. The subject lands are stated
to belong to one Salim Amir Chamadia who executed a registered
Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner herein. Subsequently vide
registered sale deeds, the original owner sold the lands to Raymond
Dara Doctor whose name came to be mutated in the record of rights.
Thereafter on 30th July, 2012, Raymond Dara Doctor sold the land to
the present Petitioner vide registered sale deed. Petitioner filed an
application for mutating his name in the record of rights which was
7 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
objected and matter was referred to the Tahsildar, who vide judgment
dated 26th March, 2013 passed in RTS Case No 70/2012 directed
mutation of the Petitioner's name in the record of rights and Mutation
Entry No 15166 came to be certified. Civil Suit NO 1296/2012 was filed
by the Respondent No 1 for declaration that the sale deed dated 30 th
July, 2012 is null and void. Mutation Entry No 15166 came to be
challenged by the Respondent No.1 which was allowed by SDO as
against which Appeal was filed before the Additional Collector, which
was rejected. RTS Revision No 193 of 2016 was filed before the
Additional Commissioner which came to be dismissed. Second Revision
came to be filed before the State Government. On 16th February, 2018,
matter was listed for hearing and no hearing was given and file was
closed for filing written submissions and order. Thereafter due to
change in office, fresh notice of hearing was given for hearing on 16 th
October, 2020. By giving two weeks time to file written submissions,
matter was closed for order. Vide order dated 29th December, 2020, the
Revision Application came to be dismissed.
9. Heard Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner. In
WP No.221-2021. Mr. Kishor Patil for the Petitioner in WP
No.2690/2022, Ms. Deepa Pohuja for Respondent No.1, Mr. Prasad S.
Dani, Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and Ms. S. D.
Chipade, AGP for respondent-State.
8 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
10. Mr. Godbole, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No 221 of 2021 would submit that though
the impugned order records that written submissions were filed,
however, no written submissions were filed. He would further submit
that the impugned order has held that the Power of Attorney cannot
be revoked by public notice and has in fact concluded the issue as
regards the termination of the MOU and has decided title dispute.
According to him, the findings in the impugned order amounts to going
into the validity of the sale transaction executed with the petitioner,
which was beyond the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities considering
that Civil Suit filed by respondent No.1 was pending adjudication. He
would further submit that the mutation entry was effected pursuant to
valid agreement for sale executed between the parties. Drawing
attention of this Court to Section 149 of the MLRC, he submits that
under the said provision the acquisition of right has to be reported and
said provision does not include a development agreement. He submits
that development agreement is merely a license as there is no transfer
of title and thus question of invoking Section 149 of MLRC does not
arise. He would further submit that after following procedure as
prescribed under Section 150 of the MLRC entry has been certified in
favour of the petitioner. He submits that under Section 154 of the
MLRC only when the document purports to create or assign or
9 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
extinguish any title in the respect of the land, intimation has to be sent
by the registering Authority to the Talathi and therefore the
development agreement which does not contemplate transfer of title
is not covered by the said provision. Pointing out to the pleadings in
the Special Civil Suit No.1450 of 2012 filed by respondent No.1 against
respondent No.2, he submits that the challenge in the said proceedings
is to the sale deed on the ground of forged and fabricated documents.
He submits that though the pleading is that the property has been
transferred with the help of forged documents, there is no declaration
to that effect which has been sought and the only relief sought is that
the sale deed is null and void and not binding upon the respondent
No.1.
11. Drawing support from the decision of Ramesh Shantilal Modi vs
State of Maharashtra,1 he submits that the Authorities under MLRC
cannot conduct an inquiry beyond the powers given under the law
which power is restricted to ascertain the veracity of the proposed
entry based on the documents produced by the parties and the
authorities cannot adjudicate upon right acquired by the parties to
such properties in respect of which mutation entry is requested. He
would further submit that the learned Single Judge has held that for
Section 149 and 150 of MLRC to operate, the applicant has to be owner
1 2018 (6) Mh. L. J. 173
10 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
mortgagee or tenant. He would submit that therefore the position is
very clear that the disputed questions of title cannot be gone into
while considering the challenge to the mutation entry.
12. Mr. Patil, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.2690 of 2022 adopts the submissions of Mr. Godbole and
submits that the Petitioner had purchased the said property from
Respondent No.2 therein. He submits that there was valid sale deed
which was executed on 30th July 2012 by which the property was
purchased. He would further submit that the Civil Suit has been filed by
respondent No.1 against the petitioner for challenging the validity of
the sale deed dated 30th July 2012 and for cancellation of sale deed. He
submits that under Section 149 the Authorities cannot go into the
validity of earlier transactions. He submits that before mutating the
name of the Petitioner in 7/12 extract all objections were raised by
respondent No.1 and thereafter by order dated 26 th March 2013
Mutation Entry No.15166 was effected in favour of the Petitioner. He
would further submit that respondent No.1 approached the
partnership firm of the petitioner seeking development rights in
respect of the suit property upon an assurance to take over the
existing loan liability of the petitioner and his firm and as respondent
No.1 failed to commence the project and started disposing the
property, legal notice came to be issued which was also published in the
11 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
newspaper terminating the earlier MOU as well as the Power of
Attorney and development agreement. He submits that thereafter on
30th July 2012, Respondent No.2 executed registered sale deed in
favour of the petitioner. He submits that the Authorities have gone
into disputed questions of title which is not permissible.
13. Per contra, Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 to
5 would submit that as far as Writ Petition No.221 of 2021 is
concerned Respondent No.1 has transferred all rights in favour of
respondent Nos.3 to 5. He would further submit that there is no
pleading in the Petition as regards the non submission of written
arguments before the Hon'ble Minister. He would further submit that
the Revenue Authorities have held that no right vests in the Petitioner
by rightly holding that the development agreement and Power of
Attorney could not have been cancelled by way of public notice. He
submits that before the DRT the Respondent No 2 was judgment
debtor in which there was an agreement and more than Rs. 2 Crores
has been paid by the Respondent No.1. He submits that despite
thereof, property was sold to the Petitioner and the mutation entry
was certified on 28th March 2013. He submits that the Power of
Attorney is registered document and Section 154 of the MLRC will
include any charge on the subject land. He submits that while
certifying the mutation entry necessary procedure was not followed.
12 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
He submits that it is not his case that the names of respondent No.3 to
5 should be mutated in the revenue records but the objection is to the
mutation in the name of the Petitioner. He submits that the suit has
been filed in the year 2012 whereas the mutation entry has been
certified in the year 2013 and therefore it is necessary that status quo
should be maintained. He points out the observations in the decision of
Ramesh Shantilal Modi vs State of Maharashtra (supra) and would
submit that in that case based on the Development Agreement and
Power of Attorney, the deed of conveyance came to be registered and
subsequently mutation entry was certified. He submits that in that
case the Court has held that the validity of the development
agreement as well as the Power of Attorney could not have been
adjudicated by the revenue authorities and in fact upheld the mutation
entry based on the development agreement.
14. As far as Writ Petition No.2690 of 2022 is concerned, he submits
that the Petitioner had introduced Respondent No.1 to the respondent
No.2 pursuant to which respondent No.2 had executed the
development agreement in favour of Respondent No.1 and had also
handed over possession. He submits that as there is valid development
agreement there could not have been any subsequent sale deed
executed in favour of the Petitioner and therefore the same came to
be challenged. He submits that the mutation entry which came to be
13 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
certified by dismissing the objection raised by the petitioner was
allowed by the Hon'ble Minister after considering that the Power of
Attorney could not be terminated by issuance of public notice. He
would submit that mutation entry should be kept in abeyance in
accordance with the view taken by this court in case of Rajiv Surendra
Doddanavar vs Madhrui Veerdhaval Chalukya2 He submits that as
the Power of Attorney and the development agreement were
registered documents, the subsequent deed of conveyance executed
in respect of the subject property should not be given effect to.
15. In rejoinder, Mr. Godbole would submit that the Sub Divisional
Officer has noted the pendency of civil suit and has held that order
passed in Civil Court will be binding on the parties. He submits that in
such case it is not necessary to cancel the mutation entry No.15406
executed in favour of the Petitioner. He submits that execution of
Power of Attorney does not create any right in the suit property.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
16. Firstly dealing with the submission of Mr. Godbole that no
written arguments were filed before the Hon'ble Minister, this Court
had directed the learned AGP to take instructions and to produce the
record in order to ascertain whether written arguments were filed by
the Petitioners. Learned AGP, upon instructions, submits that the
2 Writ Petition No 7194 of 2021 decided on 3rd April, 2024.
14 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
written arguments were filed by the Petitioners on 26 th February 2018.
This fact was thereafter fairly conceded by Mr. Godbole and he would
submit that no opportunity of personal hearing was given. Instead of
remanding the the matter, this Court heard the parties at length and
has dealt with the submissions raised and therefore remand of the
matter would be an exercise in futility.
17. Coming to the undisputed facts, in the present case the
execution of the the development agreement and the Power of
Attorney in favour of the Respondent No 1, the alleged termination of
the development agreement alongwith revocation of Power of
Attorney and the subsequent registered sale deeds in favour of the
Petitioner in both the Petitions are not disputed. The pendency of the
Civil Suit by the Respondent No 1 challenging the sale deeds is also not
disputed.
18. The challenge is to the certification of Mutation Entries in favour
of the Petitioners pursuant to the execution of the sale deeds. The
Petitioners claim right under the registered sale deeds which are
subject matter of challenge before the Civil Courts. The Respondent
No 1 or the Respondent Nos 3 to 5 have not applied for mutating their
names in the revenue records and their objection is to the mutation of
the Petitioners names in the revenue records. Under Section 149 of
MLRC where any person acquires by succession, survivorship,
15 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any
right as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord, government
lessee, tenant of any land, he is required to report the acquisition of
such right to the Talathi. Section 154 of MLRC provides that where any
document purporting to create, assign or extinguish any title to, or any
charge on, land used for agricultural purposes or in respect of which a
record of rights has been prepared is registered, the registering officer
shall send intimation to the Talathi. The Talathi in cases where
intimation is received under Section 149 or Section 154 of MLRC is
thereafter required to follow the procedure set out in Section 150 of
MLRC and then certify the mutation entries.
19. The settled position in law about which there is no dispute is
that under Section 149 and Section 150 of MLRC, the Revenue
Authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed right, title
and interest of the parties. The provisions only deal with the updation
of the revenue records based on the report of acquisition of right in
the property by any party in a manner known to law. In that context,
learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramesh Shantilal Modi vs State
of Maharashtra (supra) has noted the decision of Shrikant R.
Sankanwar and ors vs Krishna Balu Naukudkar3 holding that the
inquiry under Section 150 of MLRC is restricted to ascertain the
3 2003 (2) Mh. L. J. 276
16 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
veracity of the proposed entry based on documents produced by the
parties and cannot travel beyond the power given to the authorities to
adjudicate the rights acquired by the parties. The decision of Shanti
Budhiya Vesta Patel vs Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari 4 also noted that a
registered document under Section 74 of Evidence Act, 1872 has lot of
sanctity attached to it and revenue authority is not empowered to
directly or indirectly set aside the registered document. In facts of that
case, the learned Single Judge held that the validity of development
agreement and Power of Attorneys as well as the conveyance deeds
cannot be gone into by the revenue authority in proceedings under
Section 149 read with Section 150 of MLRC.
20. It is settled that the inquiry which is contemplated under Section
150 of the MLRC is not in relation to the right itself in or into the
immovable property and all that is required is to ascertain the veracity
of the proposed entry based on the documents produced by the
parties. In the present case, perusal of the order of the Sub Divisional
Officer dated 3rd August 2015 would indicate that the Sub-Divisional
Officer has held that upon parting with valuable consideration the
development agreement and irrevocable Power of Attorney has been
executed in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 could not
have entered into sale deed with the petitioner and that in the year
4 AIR 2010 SC 2132
17 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
2005 as the petitioner has executed an agreement upon payment of
consideration, Respondent No.2 did not have any right left to
thereafter transfer the property. The Sub Divisional Officer has further
held that the development agreement could not be cancelled by
issuance of public notice and it is required to be cancelled through the
Civil Court. Perusal of the findings of the Sub Divisional Officer would
indicate that the Sub Divisional Officer has delved into the issue of
validity of the right of respondent No.2 to transfer the property in
favour of the petitioner after having executed the Development
Agreement. The exercise contemplated under Section 247 of the MLRC
while adjudicating the challenge to the mutation entry is restricted to
ascertain the veracity of the entry based on the documents produced
by the parties. For that purpose the Authority under the MLRC is
required to consider whether there has been any acquisition of rights
and upon receiving report of such acquisition whether the procedure
under section 150 has been properly followed. The revenue authorities
cannot go into the validity of acquisition of rights.
21. The Respondent No 1 objected to the Mutation Entry effected
for the reason that there was prior registered development agreement
executed with the Respondent No 1. Although it was contended that
the development agreement was terminated vide public notice, it was
not for the revenue authorities to adjudicate the issue of termination.
18 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
The moment the submissions supported by documents evidences rival
claims of right title and interest in the property, the revenue
authorities are required to stay their hands. Entering into a dispute
about title by the revenue authorities amounts to exercising the
jurisdiction vested in the Civil Courts which is impermissible. In the
present case there is civil litigation pending challenging the validity of
the Sale deeds and the authorities thus could not have ventured to
decide the validity of the registered documents.
22. The findings of the Sub Divisional Officer has been further
upheld by the Additional Collector by holding that the sale deed
executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of the Petitioner is illegal
based on the finding on the validity of the development agreement
which was executed between respondent No.1 and respondent no.2.
The Divisional Commissioner has also arrived at the same finding and
based on the same has cancelled the mutation entry. The Hon'ble
Minister by the impugned order has upheld the findings of the
subordinate authorities and have held that the registered development
agreement and registered Power of Attorneys cannot be cancelled by
issuance of public notice and thus as the development agreement and
the Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of respondent No.1
there is no right left with respondent No.2 to transfer the same in
favour of the petitioner.
19 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
23. It is thus clear from the findings noted above that the Revenue
Authorities under the MLRC have dealt with the validity of the
registered documents and thus decided the title dispute and based on
the said finding on title have cancelled mutation entries.
24. It is no doubt true that the revenue records are for fiscal
purposes and does not create or extinguish any rights in favour of any
person. However at the same time, it cannot be lost sight that the
mutation entries have presumptive value and an entry in record of
rights is presumed to be true. Where the record of rights demonstrates
certification of mutation entry in favour of certain person, the same
attains significance in transactions pertaining to the said properties
and is often construed as corroborative evidence qua the title to the
property. Sometimes the entries in the record of rights constitute only
evidence to establish one's title to the property. In case of Rajiv
Surendra Doddanavar vs Madhuri Veerdhaval Chalukya (supra), I
have taken a view that in event of serious dispute as to title, the
Mutation Entry should be kept in abeyance.
25. The revenue authorities by adjudicating the validity and legality
of the sale deeds executed in favour of the Petitioners while
entertaining a challenge to the mutation entries have clearly exceeded
their jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227 of
Constitution of India. The impugned orders are therefore clearly
20 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
unsustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
26. The sequitur of quashing of the impugned orders would be
restoration of mutation entries, however, in the present case, the rival
claims are based on registered documents i.e. registered development
agreement in favour of the Respondent No 1 and the subsequent
registered sale deeds in favour of the Petitioners. The sanctity of the
registered documents whether a registered development agreement
or Conveyance Deed cannot be undermined. Although Mr. Godbole
would submit that development agreement is merely a license as there
is no transfer of title and thus question of invoking Section 149 of
MLRC does not arise, at the same time it needs to be noted that
valuable rights in the property are created by virtue of development
agreements. Section 149 governs the acquisition of rights whether as
holder, occupant, owner etc. The expression "to be holder of land" is
defined in Section 2(12) to be lawfully in possession of land, whether
such possession is actual or not. Even assuming arguendo that Section
149 cannot be invoked by the Respondent No 1, the challenge to the
Mutation Entries is stated to be based on prior development rights
claimed to have been alienated in favour of the Respondent No 1 by
the Respondent No 2 for valuable consideration. The dispute raises
competing issues of title in the subject property which is pending for
determination in the Civil Court. As such, in my opinion, the restoration
21 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
of the Mutation Entries would assist the probability of further
transactions being effected in respect of the subject land. Thus, in my
view, the appropriate course is to keep the Mutation Entry No.15406
and 15166 in abeyance till the disputed rights in the property are
determined in Civil proceedings.
27. In light of the above, the following order is passed:
:ORDER :
(a) The Petitions are partly allowed;
(b) The impugned orders dated 29th December, 2020 passed in
Revision Petition No RTS-3417/4728/C.R. 152/J-5 and RTS-
3417/4729/C.R. 151/J-5, orders dated 25th September, 2017
passed in RTS Revision No Pune/193/2016 and RTS Revision No
Pune/194/2016 , orders dated 30th May, 2016 passed in RTS
Appeal No 2A/463/2015 and RTS Appeal No 2A/462/2015,
orders dated 3rd August, 2015 passed in RTS Appeal No 330 of
2013 and RTS Appeal No 331 of 2013 are hereby quashed and
set aside; and
(c) The Mutation Entry No.15406 and Mutation Entry No.15166
are directed to be kept in abeyance till the final determination
by the Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.1450 of 2012 and
Special Civil Suit No. 1296 of 2012 respectively.
22 of 23
WP-221-21-F-8.doc
28. Rule is partly made absolute in above terms. In view of disposal
of petition, Interim/Civil Applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and stand disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
23 of 23
Signed by: Rajeshwari S. Karve
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2024 19:45:08
