Bombay High Court
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp. vs Chinchwad Devasthan Trust And Ors on 12 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:34771
Digitally signed
by IRESH
IRESH MASHAL
MASHAL Date:
2025.08.12
20:09:19 +0530
6-WP-8968-2018
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8968 OF 2018
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation,
having its office at Mumbai Pune High way
Pimpri, Pune 411018 ....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Chinchwad Devasthan Trust
having registered office at Mangalmurti
Wada, Chinchwadgaon, Pune 411 033
through its power of attorney holder
Mr. Prateek Ajay Chordia, residing at
Silverwood Apartment Flat No. 1, 1st
floor, Mundhwa, Pune.
2. The Collector,
Collector Office, Pune 411 001.
3. Deputy Director, Land Records,
New Administrative Building,
First Floor, Pune 411 001.
4. State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary Department
of Revenue and Forests,Mantralaya,
Mumbai. .... Respondents
Page no. 1 of 51
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:41:20 :::
6-WP-8968-2018
Mr. Narendra Walawalkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.
Shrikrishna Ganbavale and Mr. Shantanu Patil i/b. for the
Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5-
State.
Mr. Amit T. Nanware-CTS-PCMC.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
RESERVED ON : 3rd APRIL 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12th AUGUST 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. This petition is filed by the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), to
challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned
Revenue Minister of the State Government in a revision
application filed by respondent no.1-Trust (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Trust') under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code('MLRC').
2. The revision application before the State Government
was filed by the Trust under Section 257 of the MLRC to
Page no. 2 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
challenge the order dated 6th June 2017, passed by the
Deputy Director of Land Records ('DDLR') in an appeal
preferred by the Corporation under Section 247 of the MLRC.
The appeal before the DDLR was preferred by the
Corporation to challenge the order dated 8 th December 2014
passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records
('District Superintendent') in an appeal preferred by the
Corporation under Section 247 of the MLRC. The Corporation
had preferred the appeal before the District Superintendent to
challenge the order dated 4th August 2008, passed by the City
Survey Officer. The date of the order is wrongly typed as 4 th
July 2008 by the City Survey Officer; hence, the correct date
is clarified in the order of DDLR. By the said order, the City
Survey Officer issued directions to enter the name of the Trust
as "original holder" in respect of an area admeasuring 7
Hectares 89 Ares of the land situated adjacent to survey no.1,
excluding the area covered by the lake at village Bhosari. The
City Survey Officer issued directions to create a property card
for the said area in the name of the Trust by numbering it as
CTS No. 4579. The City Survey Officer passed the said order
Page no. 3 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
in accordance with the directions issued by the
Superintendent of Land Records on 16 th July 2008.
3. The Superintendent of Land Records had directed the
City Survey Officer to allot the last city survey number for the
area adjacent to survey no.1 by excluding the area covered
by the lake, by holding an inquiry as contemplated under
Section 122 and Section 20 (2) of the MLRC. The Corporation
is aggrieved by the directions issued by the City Survey
Officer to enter the name of the Trust as the original holder of
CTS No. 4579 for an area admeasuring 7 Hectares 89 Ares
adjacent to Survey No.1 by excluding the area covered by the
lake (this area is hereinafter referred to as "the said land").
4. For a better understanding of the controversy and for
examining the rival submissions, the following dates and
events would be relevant:
a) 8th July 1997: The Corporation entered into an
agreement with the Trust for acquiring an area of
1,05,400 square meters of the open land situated
adjacent to the lake at Survey No.1 of village
Page no. 4 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Bhosari, Pimpri, District Pune. The area proposed for
acquisition was described in green on the attached
map. It is stated in the agreement that in the
Government record, the name of the Trust was
entered as the owner of the said land. Hence, the
Corporation entered into an agreement with the Trust
for acquiring the said area.
b) 20th November 1999: Pursuant to the agreement
executed between the Corporation and the Trust, the
Director of the Town Planning Department submitted
a valuation report of the area proposed to be
acquired at Rs. 1,62,53,631/-.
c) 25th November 2004: The learned District Collector
("Collector") intimated to the Corporation that, as the
area proposed to be acquired is not entered in the
revenue record, the relevant 7/12 extracts are not
issued. Hence, the proposal for the acquisition of the
area agreed to be acquired by the Corporation
cannot be included in the acquisition proceedings.
d) 30th April 2008: The Corporation and the Trust
submitted a joint application to the Taluka Inspector
of Land Records (TILR) for conducting a survey and
issuing a survey number for the area proposed to be
acquired, excluding the area of the lake.
Page no. 5 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
e) 29th May 2008: The Corporation informed the learned
Collector that the measurement plan dated 29 th May
2008, and the report were submitted before the
Superintendent of Land Records and the District
Collector. Hence, the Corporation requested that the
measurement plan be considered and accordingly
allot the city survey number to the area to be
acquired by the Corporation, excluding the lake area,
to enable the Corporation to pay the compensation
amount to the Trust.
f) 16th July 2008: The Superintendent of Land Records
directed the City Survey Officer to allot the last city
survey number to the land excluding the lake area
adjacent to Survey No. 1 by making necessary
inquiry under Section 122 and Section 20 (2) of
MLRC. The City Survey Officer was thus directed to
allot the last city survey number to the area proposed
to be acquired, without prejudice to the rights of the
adjoining landholders and the State Government and
without committing any breach of the provisions of
Sections 106, 155, 134 and 137 of MLRC.
g) 4th July 2008: Pursuant to the directions issued by the
Superintendent of Land Records, the City Survey
Officer conducted a necessary inquiry regarding the
area proposed to be acquired by the Corporation.
Page no. 6 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
The City Survey Officer examined the documents
submitted by the trust regarding the grant in favour of
the Trust. As per the inquiry, the City Survey Officer
directed to allot the City Survey No. 4579 for the said
land in the name of the Trust as the original holder.
h) 13th June 2012: The District Collector prepared a
draft award for the acquisition of the said land and
submitted it to the Divisional Commissioner for
approval.
i) 7th July 2012: Learned Divisional Commissioner
submitted a report to the learned Collector stating
that the report of the learned Collector, thereby
intimating the valuation made by the DDLR, the area
of the lake admeasuring 102000 square meters and
area admeasuring 62,357 square meters covered by
the water body was not taken into consideration. The
Divisional Commissioner reported that the area of
2200 square meters covered by a water body was
originally 40,000 square meters, and after carrying
out certain filling work, the area of the water body has
been reduced. Hence, the draft award was
disapproved.
j) 15th July 2012: Learned Collector informed the
Special Land Acquisition Officer seeking directions
Page no. 7 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
regarding the ownership of the water body in respect
of the City Survey No. 4579 as per the approved
development plan.
k) 5th August 2013: Since the Corporation had not taken
any steps to complete the acquisition proceedings,
pursuant to the agreement, Writ Petition No. 7497 of
2013 was filed by the Trust before this Court for
directing the Corporation and the State Government
to complete the acquisition process and pass a
necessary award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Alternatively, the Trust prayed that
the Corporation and the State Government should
restore the right, title, and interest in the said land
and hand it over to the Trust by declaring that the
acquisition of the said land is void in law.
l) 2nd May 2014: The writ petition was disposed of,
granting two years time to the Corporation to take
recourse to the proceedings for the acquisition of the
land mentioned in the agreement dated 8 th July 1997.
This court directed that if the award under the
relevant Act is not made within a period of 2 years;
then, on expiry of a period of three years from the
said period of two years, the Corporation shall
restore the possession of the land to the Trust by
restoring the same to its original condition as on the
Page no. 8 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
date of the agreement. This court further directed that
in the event the Corporation is in a position to offer
TDR before completion of the acquisition within the
stipulated period of two years, it would be open for
the Corporation to seek modification of the directions
issued by this court.
m) 9th December 2013: The Corporation filed an appeal
under Section 247 of the MLRC to challenge the
order dated 4th August 2008 passed by the City
Survey Officer, directing the entry of the name of the
Trust for CTS No. 4579. For the first time, the
Corporation raised an objection to the survey carried
out by the City Survey Officer.
n) 8th December 2014: The said appeal was dismissed
by the District Superintendent of Land Records.
o) 21st January 2016: The Corporation filed a second
appeal under Section 247 of the MLRC, to challenge
the order dismissing their first appeal by the District
Superintendent.
p) 25th January 2017: The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed an award in the name of the Trust for
acquiring the said land proposed to be acquired by
the Corporation, stating that it was passed under the
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Page no. 9 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Act, 2013, along with the provisions under Section
11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
q) Being aggrieved by the said award, the Trust filed a
writ petition in this court challenging the award. The
said writ petition is still pending.
r) 6th June 2017: The appeal preferred by the
Corporation before the DDLR was decided, and the
order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records
was quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order of
the City Survey Officer directing to allot CTS No.
4579 in the name of the Trust and Mutation Entry
No. 287 was quashed and set aside. In this appeal,
the Corporation joined the District Collector as party
respondent.
s) 16th May 2018: Being aggrieved by the order passed
by the DDLR, the Trust filed a revision application
before the learned revenue minister, which was
decided. The order passed by the DDLR was
quashed and set aside, and the orders of the District
Superintendent of Land Records and the City Survey
Officer were confirmed. Hence, this petition by the
Corporation.
5. The submissions made by the learned senior counsel
Page no. 10 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
for the Corporation are summarised as under:
a) The Superintendent of Land Records directed the City
Survey Officer only to allot the city survey number.
However, the City Survey Officer recorded the
conclusion on the title of the land and directed that a city
survey number be allotted in the name of the Trust by
entering the name of the Trust as the owner of the land.
The area of 105400 square meters as stated in the
agreement excluded the area of the lake, which is
entirely a water body adjacent to survey no.1. According
to the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, the water body is
situated in survey no.1 and the affidavit shows that the
State Government had raised objections to the title of
the Trust in respect of the said area.
b) The conclusions recorded in the order of the City
Survey Officer are beyond his jurisdiction. He was
directed to only carry out a survey for allotting a city
survey number for the area to be acquired for the
Corporation. Hence, the DDLR rightly set aside the
Page no. 11 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
order of the City Survey Officer. However, the learned
Minister blamed the learned Collector and, without
examining the contentions raised by the Corporation,
quashed and set aside the order passed by the DDLR.
The Trust cannot claim title over the said land in the
absence of any title document. The entire land referred
to in the agreement is a water body and therefore it
belongs to the State Government.
c) By recording vague reasons, the learned Minister,
without dealing with the reasons recorded by the DDLR,
reversed the order passed by the DDLR. The reasons
recorded by the learned Minister completely ignore the
directions issued by the Superintendent of Land
Records directing the City Survey Officer to carry out an
inquiry only to allot a city survey number to the land
proposed to be acquired by the Corporation. The grant
in favour of the Trust is a limited grant, and absolute title
does not vest in the Trust. The revenue record shows
that the land is Shurakuttee, which is a term applied to
Page no. 12 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
villages or estates of which revenue is shared with the
government.
d) There are various litigations in respect of the other
properties of the Trust, which are also granted under the
same sanad, in which the government raised objections
regarding the title of the land; however, the learned
Minister ignored the contentions of the government in
those litigations. Government's objections could not
have been ignored by the learned Minister and were
required to be dealt with, being a quasi-judicial authority.
Therefore, a fresh inquiry should have been ordered as
per the Rules. Hence, the impugned order be quashed
and set aside, and this Court, in exercise of the powers
of superintendence, issue directions to hold a fresh
inquiry.
6. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the Trust
are summarised as under:
a) The letter dated 25th November 2004, issued by the
Page no. 13 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
learned Collector, shows that the Corporation's proposal
for acquisition, as per the agreement, was not
proceeded with on the grounds that, in the absence of
7/12 extracts, it is not possible to ascertain ownership of
the land. On the date of the agreement and even on 30 th
April 2008, when a joint request was made for a survey,
the Corporation had never raised any doubts about the
title of the Trust. The Corporation was very clear in
acquiring the land from the Trust, as the land belonged
to the Trust as the owner. According to the joint request
dated 30th April 2008, an emergency survey was carried
out and a survey report and map were prepared on 28 th
May 2008, numbered as MR/2827/2008 and were
submitted before the learned Collector. The Corporation
accepted the report and the survey map, and therefore
applied by letter 29th May 2008, and requested the
Collector that the city survey number be assigned to the
area proposed for acquisition.
b) The Superintendent of Land Records ordered to hold an
Page no. 14 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
inquiry under Section 20(2) of MLRC. An inquiry
contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of
MLRC is only for the purpose of payment of land
revenue. In the present case, the process of allotting a
city survey number does not determine title, and the
Trust has always held the title to the area proposed for
acquisition. The Trust has demonstrated that neither
the Corporation nor the State Government has disputed
the Trust's title to the land proposed for acquisition. The
order passed by the City Survey Officer in 2008 was
challenged for the first time in 2014, only after the
division bench of this court issued directions in the writ
petition filed by the Trust. During the pendency of the
writ petition before this court, the Corporation had
preferred an appeal before the DDLR.
c) Learned counsel for the Trust referred to the reply filed
by the Corporation in the pending writ petition before
this court and submitted that the title of the Trust was
never challenged, even in the writ petition. The appeal
Page no. 15 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
before the DDLR was the second appeal, which was not
maintainable; therefore, the order passed by the DDLR
is non est. The objections were invited at the time of
acquisition, but no objections were raised by any third
party. The award passed pursuant to the directions
issued by this court is a conditional award and does not
comply with the directions issued by this court.
d) For holding the inquiry under Section 20(2) of the
MLRC, as ordered by the Superintendent of the Land
Records, there was no necessity to give notice to the
Collector. The Inquiry contemplated under Section 20 is
only for the purpose of payment of land revenue. In the
present case, the purpose of holding an inquiry was to
ascertain the amount of compensation to be paid for
taking over the Trust's land by the Corporation, and
there was no issue to be decided on the title. The
Trust's title was always there. The City Survey Officer
has conducted the necessary inquiry and rightly
directed the allotment of City Survey No. 4579 for the
Page no. 16 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
said land in the name of the Trust as the original holder.
e) Learned counsel for the Trust relied upon Section 75 of
the MLRC, which provides for the maintenance of the
Register of alienated lands. He pointed out the Sanad of
1853, the Inam Decree and the entry in the alienation
register to support his submissions that the Trust's title
was never questioned. The civil court's decrees in
respect of the other lands granted under the same title
documents reject the objections raised by the
Government on the Trust's title. By Order dated 10 th
September 2014, this court dismissed the Second
Appeal No. 107 of 2014, filed by the Corporation to
challenge the civil court's decree in respect of the Baner
property granted to the Trust under the same title
documents.
f) Government Resolution dated 27th September 1984
permits the Trust to get the revenue in view of the
Sanad granted to the Trust for various villages, which
includes Bhosari village, where the present subject land
Page no. 17 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
is situated. By order dated 4th August 1971, the Talathi
held an inquiry and part of Survey No. 1 shown as
Gairan, was deleted. In various civil suits and revenue
proceedings, the Government's objections to the Trust's
title in respect of other villages, i.e. Siddhatek, Morgav,
Mulshi and Wakad, based on the same title documents
under the same Sanad are rejected. In one of the orders
passed by the learned Minister in respect of Mulshi
village, reference to Bhosari village is also made, stating
that, as per Order dated 22 nd December 1988, the land
at Bhosalr is shown as soil grant in the name of the
Trust. All these documents are part of the record in the
proceedings before the authorities.
g) The Trust was constrained to file Suit No. 685 of 2003 to
challenge the agreement with the Trust, as the Trust felt
betrayed seeing the Corporation's painfully slow
movements to complete the acquisition process, despite
taking over possession of the land from the Trust.
Hence, in the Order allowing the writ petition filed by the
Page no. 18 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Trust, this court in paragraph 10 observed that the
petitioner has been deprived of a very valuable land
without payment of any compensation, and the
Corporation's action is in breach of Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
h) The City Survey Officer's order dated 4 th August 2008
was for the first time challenged in 2014, only after the
Division Bench of this Court issued conditional
directions to complete the acquisition process. Hence,
the learned Minister has rightly set aside the order
cancelling the order passed by the City Survey Officer.
Submissions in rejoinder on behalf of the Corporation :
7. In response to the arguments raised on behalf of the
Trust, the learned senior counsel for the Corporation
submitted that the order passed by the Superintendent of
Land Records did not direct that the name of the Trust be
recorded. The jurisdiction exercised by the DDLR should be
treated as a revisional jurisdiction. It is important to note that
Page no. 19 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
the learned senior counsel for the Corporation, however, does
not dispute that a second appeal before the DDLR would not
survive. But he also submits that it is merely a procedural
lapse; hence, the jurisdiction exercised by the DDLR must be
treated as a power exercised under the revisional jurisdiction.
He further submits that the Divisional Commissioner's letter to
the Collector clearly records that there were objections raised
on the ownership of the area proposed to be acquired, and so
far as the area of the water body is concerned, the same
could be owned only by the Corporation. Hence, the learned
Minister has exercised powers beyond his jurisdiction by
ignoring the relevant provisions of the MLRC.
Analysis and Conclusions:
8. The controversy surrounding this petition has a
chequered history. The subject matter of this litigation is a
piece of land situated adjacent to a lake in Village Bhosari,
Pune District. The Trust is a registered Public Charitable Trust
that claims ownership of the said land. The Trust's claim is
based on a hereditary Sanad granted in A.D. 1709/10 by
Page no. 20 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Shahoo Raja of Satara to Narayan Maharaj Bin Chintaman
Maharaj for the expenses of a deity, "Mangal Moortis Deo of
Chinchore". The Trust relies on various documents, including
letters from Shahoo Raja and Peshwa Ballaji Bajirao, which
grant revenue rights for seven villages, including Bhosari
village. The Trust also relies on an Inam Decree dated 31 st
March 1859, issued by the British Government, which
continues the original grant by Shahoo Raja. The land's title is
not an issue to be adjudicated in the present litigation;
however, the background in brief was necessary to
understand the reason for the directions issued by the learned
Superintendent of Land Records for conducting an inquiry of
the said land and allotting a city survey number.
9. It is not disputed that in the Government Record, the
Trust's name is entered in respect of the said land, and the
Corporation intended to acquire it. Hence, the Corporation
entered into an agreement dated 8 th July 1997 with the Trust
for acquiring an area of 1,05,400 square meters of the open
land situated adjacent to the lake at Survey No.1 of village
Page no. 21 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Bhosari, Pimpri, District Pune. The agreement states that in
the revenue record, the name of the Trust was entered as the
owner of the said land, it is unencumbered, and the Trust is
entitled to execute the agreement. The agreement also
records that the land was to be utilised by the Corporation for
public purposes; hence, the Trust agreed to enter into the
transaction for transferring the ownership of the land to the
Corporation in lieu of a monetary consideration. Hence, the
Corporation entered into an agreement with the Trust for
acquiring the said area.
10. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the
Corporation agreed to have the land valuation conducted
through the Town Planning and Valuation Department of the
Government, and the Trust agreed to accept the
consideration amount as per the valuation. Accordingly, the
Director of the Town Planning Department on 20 th November
1999 submitted a valuation report of the area proposed to be
acquired. However, the learned Collector, on 25 th November
2004, informed the Corporation that since the area proposed
Page no. 22 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
for acquisition is not allotted any survey number, the relevant
7/12 extracts have not been issued. Hence, the proposal for
the acquisition of the area agreed to be acquired by the
Corporation cannot be included in the acquisition
proceedings. Thus, although the Corporation took over
possession of the proposed area to be acquired, no
compensation was paid.
11. Thereafter, a joint survey was carried out, and a plan
bearing MR No. 2827/2008 was prepared. The City Survey
Officer submitted the plan and the report to the
Superintendent on 29th May 2008 and to the Collector. Hence,
the Corporation, by letter dated 29 th May 2008, requested the
learned Collector to allot a city survey number to the area
proposed to be acquired, excluding the area of the lake, to
enable the Corporation to make payment of the compensation
amount. A copy of the said letter was also marked to the
Superintendent and the City Survey Officer. Hence, on 16th
July 2008, the Superintendent directed the City Survey Officer
to conduct a necessary inquiry under Section 122 and Section
Page no. 23 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
20 (2) of MLRC. The City Survey Officer was thus directed to
allot the last city survey number to the area proposed to be
acquired, excluding the lake area adjacent to Survey No. 1,
without prejudice to the rights of the State Government and
adjoining landholders and without committing any breach of
the provisions of Sections 106, 155, 134 and 137 of MLRC.
12. The City Survey Officer conducted an inquiry and, by
order dated 4th August 2008, directed that the City Survey No.
4579 be allotted to the said land, excluding the area of the
lake adjacent to Survey No. 1, in the name of the Trust in the
column of original holder by preparing the property card. The
Corporation is aggrieved by this Order of the City Survey
Officer; however, from the record, the following facts emerge
as admitted by the parties:
(i) In the Government record, the Trust's name is entered
in respect of the area proposed to be acquired; hence,
the Corporation entered into an agreement in 1997 with
the Trust for acquiring the land for payment of a
monetary consideration.
Page no. 24 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
(ii) The Corporation took over possession of the land in
1999. But did not pay the amount of compensation.
(iii) As agreed, the valuation report was also
submitted by the Director of the Valuation and Town
Planning department of the Government, fixing the
valuation at Rs. 1.33 Crores.
(iv) The land was not allotted any revenue survey
number; hence, a joint survey was carried out, and a
plan bearing MR No. 2827/2008 was prepared. This
plan was never challenged.
(v) The Corporation requested the learned Collector
to allot a revenue survey number to the land, to enable
the Corporation to make payment of the compensation
amount.
13. Thus, it is necessary to examine the scope of the
enquiry conducted by the City Survey Officer pursuant to the
directions issued by the learned Superintendent. The City
Survey Officer was directed to conduct a necessary inquiry
Page no. 25 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
under Section 122 and Section 20 (2) of the MLRC, without
prejudice to the rights of the State Government and the
adjoining landholders and without committing any breach of
the provisions of Sections 106, 155, 134 and 137 of MLRC.
Section 20 is a power conferred upon a revenue officer to
hold an inquiry. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of MLRC
provides for a formal inquiry to decide a claim where any
property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or
on behalf of the Government or by any person as against the
Government. Section 20 of the MLRC reads as under:
"Section 20. Title of State in all lands, public roads, etc., which
are not property of others.
(1) All public roads, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches,
dikes and fences, on, or beside, the same, the bed of the sea
and of harbours and creeks below the high watermark, and of
rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks and all canals and
watercourses, and all standing and flowing water, and all
lands wherever situated, which are not the property of
persons legally capable of holding property, and except in so
far as any rights of such persons may be established, in or
over the same, and except as may be otherwise provided in
any law for the time being in force, are and are hereby
Page no. 26 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
declared to be, with all rights in or over the same, or
appertaining thereto, the property of the State Government
and it shall be lawful for the Collector, subject to the orders of
the Commissioner, to dispose of them in such manner as may
be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, subject
always to the rights of way, and all other rights of the public or
of individuals legally subsisting.
Explanation.- In this section, high water-mark means the
highest point reached by ordinary spring tides at any season
of the year.
(2) Where any property right in or over any property is
claimed by or on behalf of the Government or by any person
as against the Government, it shall be lawful for the Collector
or a survey officer, after formal inquiry of which due notice has
been given, to pass an order deciding the claim.
(3) An order passed by the Collector or survey officer under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall, be subject to one
appeal and revision in accordance with the provisions of this
Code.
(4) Any suit instituted in any civil court after the expiration of
one year from the date of any order passed under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) or, if appeal has been made against
such order within the period of limitation, then from the date of
any order passed by the appellate authority, shall be
dismissed (though limitation has not been set up as a
defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the
Page no. 27 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
relief claimed is inconsistent with such order, provided that in
the case of an order under sub-section (2) the plaintiff has
had due notice of such order.
(5) Any person shall be deemed to have had due notice of an
inquiry or order under this section if notice thereof has been
given in accordance with rules made in this behalf by the
State Government."
14. Section 122 is under Chapter VIII of the MLRC, which
deals with the procedure for fixing the limits of the lands within
the sites of villages, towns and cities. Section 106 is under
Chapter VI of the MLRC, which deals with the assessment
and settlement of land revenue of agricultural land. Section
106 empowers the Collector to correct errors in the area or
assessment due to a mistake in survey or arithmetical
calculations. Sections 134 and 137 are under Chapter IX of
the MLRC, which deals with boundaries and boundary marks.
Section 134 deals with the determination of field boundaries
and their correctness by the village officers, as pointed out by
the holder or person in occupation. Section 137 deals with the
procedure for straightening out crooked boundaries. Section
150 is under Chapter X of the MLRC, which deals with land
Page no. 28 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
records and the record of rights. Section 150 provides the
procedure to be followed for making entries in the record of
rights and maintaining the register and dealing with the
objections to the entries made.
15. From the facts of the present case, and the submissions
made on behalf of the Trust by referring to various documents
as recorded in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that there
was no dispute on the title of the Trust in respect of the land
proposed to be acquired by the Corporation. The reason for
directing an inquiry is apparent from the order dated 16 th July
2008, passed by the learned Superintendent, that a land
survey number was required to be allotted for determining the
land value for payment of compensation. Section 2(37) of the
MLRC defines 'survey number' as under:
"2(37) "survey number" means a portion of land of which the
area and assessment are separately entered, under an
indicative number in the land records and includes
(i) plots reconstituted under a final town planning scheme,
improvement scheme or a scheme of consolidation of holding
which has come into force in any area under any law; and
Page no. 29 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
(ii) in the districts of Nagpur, Wardha, Chanda and Bhandara
any portion of land entered in the land records under any
indicative number known as the khasra number; "
16. Thus, when a land is allotted a survey number, the area
and assessment are separately entered in the land records
maintained under the provisions of MLRC. The phrase 'land
records' is also defined under the MLRC. Section 2(18)
defines 'land records' as under:
"2(18) "land records" means records maintained under the
provisions of, or for the purposes of, this Code and includes a
copy of maps and plans of a final town planning scheme,
improvement scheme or a scheme of consolidation of
holdings which has come into force in any area under any law
in force in the State and forwarded to any revenue or survey
officer under such law or otherwise;"
17. The directions issued by the learned Superintendent to
hold an inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the
MLRC, without prejudice to the rights of the other holders or
the Government and without committing any breach of
Sections 106, 134, 137 and 150, is therefore apparent that
before allotting a survey number to the land proposed to be
Page no. 30 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
acquired, it was found necessary to examine if any other
claim exists in the land.
18. Thus, by keeping in mind the scope of Sections 122 and
20(2) read with Sections 106, 134, 137 and 150 of the MLRC,
the City Survey Officer conducted an inquiry. The reasons
recorded in the order dated 4 th August 2008, indicate that the
City Survey Officer examined the joint survey map and report
bearing MR No. 2827/08, the documents pertaining to the
sanad granted by Chhatrapati Shahoo Maharaj, Inam decree
and alienation register. He further observed that these
documents were not produced at the time of the city survey;
hence, the land was neither allotted any survey number nor
was a property card prepared. The City Survey Officer
recorded that he examined all the records pertaining to the
adjoining lands to Survey No. 1 of village Bhosari and allotted
City Survey No. 4579 for an area of 7 Hectares 89 Ares in the
name of the Trust as the original holder and accordingly
directed to prepare the property card.
19. It appears that the corporation unnecessarily stretched
Page no. 31 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
the issue over the direction issued by the City Survey Officer
to enter the name of the Trust as 'original holder'. The
corporation took over possession of the land after entering
into the agreement with the Trust, which recorded that the
land was in the name of the Trust as the owner. The events
that occurred after taking over possession were only to
ascertain the land value for payment of compensation.
20. All the documents that are part of the record and
proceedings are produced on record by the Trust by filing an
affidavit. The civil court's decrees in respect of the other lands
granted under the same title documents rejected the
objections raised by the Government on the Trust's title. By
Order dated 10th September 2014, this court dismissed the
Second Appeal No. 107 of 2014, filed by the Corporation to
challenge the civil court's decree in respect of the Baner
property granted to the Trust under the same title documents.
A Government Resolution dated 27 th September 1984
permitted the Trust to get the revenue in view of the Sanad
granted to the Trust for various villages, which includes
Page no. 32 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Bhosari village, where the said land is situated. In various civil
suits and revenue proceedings, the Government's objections
to the Trust's title in respect of other villages, i.e. Siddhatek,
Morgav, Mulshi and Wakad, based on the same title
documents under the Sanad are rejected. In one of the orders
passed by the learned Minister in respect of Mulshi village,
reference to Bhosari village is also made, that as per Order
dated 22nd December 1988, the land at Bhosari is shown as a
soil grant in the name of the Trust.
21. It is apparent that the Corporation and the State
Government, for the reasons best known to them, were slow
to complete the acquisition process, despite taking over
possession of the said land from the Trust. I see substance in
the arguments made by the learned counsel for the Trust that
the Trust felt betrayed and was constrained to file Suit No.
685 of 2003 to challenge the agreement with the Trust.
However, in view of the communication dated 6 th March 2010,
the Corporation assured regarding the grant of TDR
('Transferable Development Rights'), on the condition of
Page no. 33 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
withdrawing the suit. Once again, the Trust believed the
Corporation's assurance and withdrew the suit. However,
nothing happened. It appears that although a city survey
number was allotted to the land proposed to be acquired, the
proceedings were not concluded, and compensation was not
paid. Hence, the Trust filed Writ Petition No. 7497 of 2013 in
this Court. By order dated 2nd May 2014, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition. The operative
part of the order reads as under:
"ORDER
(i) We grant time of two years from today to the fourth
Respondent-Municipal Corporation to take recourse to the
proceedings of the compulsory acquisition in respect of the
land subject matter of agreement dated 8th July 1997;
(ii) If the award under the relevant law is not made within a
period of two years from today, on expiry of the period of three
months from the said period of two years, the Municipal
Corporation shall restore the possession of the land subject
matter of Petition to the Petitioner. While restoring the said
Page no. 34 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
land, the Municipal Corporation will have to restore the same
to its original condition as on the date of the said Agreement;
(iii) In the event, the fourth Respondent is in position to offer
TDR to the Petitioner before the completion of acquisition
within the stipulated period of two years, it will be open for the
fourth Respondent to move this Court for modification of the
directions issued as above;
(iv) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on
the disputed questions raised by the State Government as
well as by the Municipal Corporation as regards the title of the
Petitioner to a part of the land subject matter of the said
agreement. The said issue will have to be resolved as
observed earlier;
(v) We partly allow the Petition on above terms;
(vi) Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of the order. "
22. The Corporation laid much emphasis on some of the
observations by the Division Bench. The DDLR has referred
to the observations made regarding the title of the Trust, to
hold that the City Survey Officer needed to issue notice to the
Page no. 35 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
State Government to examine the title of the land, as the
Division Bench had kept the issue of the title open. Hence, it
is necessary to understand the directions issued by the
Division bench on the issue of title. The Division Bench
observed in paragraph 12 as under:
"12. Therefore, as of today, the Petitioner has made out a
case, for restoration of the said land the possession of which
was handed over to the fourth Respondent-Municipal
Corporation under the agreement dated 8 th July, 1997.
However, we are conscious of the fact that the Municipal
Corporation has already used a part of the said land for public
purpose. Therefore, we propose to grant time of two years to
the Municipal Corporation to ensure that acquisition
proceedings are initiated and the same are taken to its logical
conclusion. At this stage, we are not entering into the
controversy whether the acquisition will be under the said Act
of 1894 or under the said Act of 2013. We may, however,
make it clear that while making an award of grant of
compensation, it is for the Collector or the Special Land
Acquisition Officer to decide whether the petitioner is entitled
Page no. 36 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
to receive any compensation and to what extent. The award
will also contain a statement as regards the exact area which
is the subject matter of acquisition. Therefore, it is not
necessary for us to go into the issue whether the petitioner is
the absolute owner of the entire said land subject matter of
the said agreement as the said issue will be taken care of
during the acquisition proceedings if any."
23. Thus, it is clear that the Division Bench did not go into
the issue of absolute ownership of the Trust by clarifying that
while making an award for grant of compensation, it is for the
collector or the acquisition officer to decide the Trust's
entitlement to receive compensation and to what extent. In
view of these observations it was further clarified in the
operative order in clause (iv) that the issue regards title raised
by the Corporation and the State Government will have to be
resolved as observed earlier; which means that it has to be
resolved by the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer while
deciding grant of compensation as recorded by the Division
Bench in paragraph 12 of the Order. Thus, the issue of
Page no. 37 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
'absolute ownership' of the Trust was kept open only for the
purpose of deciding the entitlement to receive compensation
and the extent of compensation. The DDLR misinterpreted
this observation to mean that the issue of title was kept open
for deciding it in the inquiry under the MLRC.
24. I am constrained to observe that there is complete non-
application of mind by the DDLR and an attempt to overreach
the directions issued by the Division Bench. He has not only
misinterpreted the order in the writ petition but has also
ignored the provisions of MLRC. In a second appeal under
Section 247 of MLRC filed by the Corporation, which was not
maintainable in view of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the
MLRC, the DDLR went to the extent of adding the State
Government as party respondent and permitted fresh
pleadings and adjudicated on the title of the Trust by
completely misinterpreting the directions of the Division
Bench which kept the issue of absolute ownership of the Trust
open to be decided in acquisition proceedings by the
Collector or the acquisition officer.
Page no. 38 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
25. It was only after the Writ Petition was filed in this court
before the Division Bench, that the Corporation filed an
appeal under section 247 of the MLRC before the District
Superintendent of Land Records to challenge the Order dated
4th August 2008 passed by the City Survey Officer. The
District Superintendent of Land Records examined the
grounds of challenge raised by the Corporation and held that
after examining the entire record and considering the
submissions of the Corporation, the City Survey Officer held
the necessary inquiry as contemplated under Section 20(2)
read with Section 122 of the MLRC. The District
Superintendent of Land Records found no substance in the
objections raised by the Corporation and thus confirmed the
order of the City Survey Officer and dismissed the
Corporation's appeal on 8th December 2014.
26. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the
Corporation filed a second appeal under Section 247 of the
MLRC before the DDLR. In this appeal, the Corporation also
added the District Superintendent of Land Records and the
Page no. 39 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
District Collector as party respondents. In view of sub-section
(3) of Section 20 of the MLRC, only one appeal is provided in
accordance with the provisions of the MLRC against an order
passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section ( 2). Hence, the
second appeal filed before the DDLR by the Corporation was
not maintainable. However, in this non-maintainable appeal,
DDLR not only permitted the learned Collector to be added as
a party respondent, but also permitted the filing of substantive
pleadings raising new grounds, which is even beyond the
scope of an appeal under Section 247 of the MLRC.
27. There is no debate on the point that, in view of sub-
section (3) of Section 20 of the MLRC, only one appeal is
provided in accordance with the provisions of the MLRC
against an order passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2). However, learned senior counsel for the Corporation
submitted that the order passed by the DDLR in the appeal
filed by the Corporation can be treated as the revisional
powers exercised under Section 257 of the MLRC. I do not
find any substance in this argument, as the scope of appeal
Page no. 40 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
under Section 247 and the revision under Section 257 of the
MLRC are completely different. In the facts of the present
case, although only one appeal was permissible in view of
sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the MLRC, the DDLR
entertained the second appeal filed by the Corporation under
Section 247 of the MLRC and further permitted the addition of
parties and fresh pleadings by taking recourse to the
appellate authority's powers under sub-section (3) of Section
255 of the MLRC. Hence, the DDLR has acted without any
jurisdiction.
28. The DDLR allowed the appeal by entertaining objections
raised on behalf of the State Government. The learned
Collector contented that: (i) the area of 7 Hectares 89 Ares
entered in the name of the Trust is originally a water body, as
the water dried up, it became usable land; hence, it was
necessary to conduct an inquiry under Section 20 of the
MLRC on the title of the land, (ii) the ownership of the land
vested in the State Government, and the Sanad granted to
the Trust was only for the expenses of the Deity, and (iii) the
Page no. 41 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
agreement entered into by the Corporation with the Trust is
illegal, therefore, the Order passed by the City Survey Officer
without hearing the State Government was liable to be set
aside.
29. Since the learned Collector raised objections to the
Trust's title, the Trust produced all the title documents and the
earlier orders passed by the Collector. The Trust contended
that by the Sanad dated 13 th January 1853, Raja Shahoo
Chhatrapati granted the land to the erstwhile Chinchwad
Devasthan. Thereafter, in the Inam Commission Decree
proceedings conducted before the Collector, in respect of the
entire village Bhosari, the land, including the said land
granted by the original Sanad, was continued in Inam for the
expenses of the Chinchore Deosthan in the name Narayan
Deo Bin Chintaman Maharaj and his male lineal descendants.
In the alienation register maintained by the Collector, the
name of the Trust was recorded as Inamdar and the owner of
the village Bhosari, which includes the said land. Thereafter,
on an application made by the Trust, the Collector passed an
Page no. 42 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
order dated 2nd February 1971, that the lands at village
Bhosari, including the said land, belonged to the Trust. The
Collector also approved the layout plans of the Trust by order
dated 12th November 1986. It was thus alleged by the Trust
that as the Collector had filed a false affidavit, proceedings
under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, read with
Sections 191, 192 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code, should
be initiated. However, the DDLR rejected the prayer for action
under the criminal procedure code on the ground that it
should be adjudicated before the appropriate jurisdictional
forum.
30. In view of the submissions made regarding the
directions issued for entering the name of the Trust as the
original holder, it is also necessary to understand the word
"original holder" used by the City Survey Officer. It is argued
on behalf of the Corporation that the City Survey Officer
exceeded his jurisdiction by directing that the name of the
Trust should be entered as "original holder", when the
Superintendent directed him to allot only a survey number to
Page no. 43 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
the land proposed to be acquired. It is absolutely illogical that
the City Survey Officer was required only to allot a survey
number without entering the particulars of the land holding.
The purpose of the directions issued by the Superintendent to
the City Survey Officer was to allot the city survey number to
the proposed land as per reference letters no. 2, i.e. letters
dated 29th May 2008 and 11th July 2008. These letters pertain
to the request made by the Corporation to make an entry in
the revenue record and allot a city survey number to the land
proposed to be acquired to enable the Corporation to make
payment towards compensation to the Trust for the land
which is already taken over by the Corporation from the Trust.
31. Hence, the directions were issued to the City Survey
Officer to conduct an inquiry under Sections 122 and 20(2)
and without committing a breach of Sections 106, 155, 134
and 137. The provision of Section 122 provides for
ascertaining and determining the lands to be included within
the site of any village, town or city and to fix limits of the sites
determined by having regard to all the subsisting rights of the
Page no. 44 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
landholders. Section 20(2) provides for holding a formal
inquiry about any property or any right claimed by or on behalf
of the Government or by any person as against the
Government. As per section 2(37) a survey number means a
portion of land of which the area and assessment are
separately entered. It is necessary to make a reference to the
definitions of "to hold land" and "holding" defined under
section 2(12) and 2(13), which reads as under:
"Section 2 (12) " to hold land" or "to be a land-holder or
holder of land" means to be lawfully in possession of
land, whether such possession is actual or not;"
"Section 2 (13) "holding" means a portion of land held
by a holder;"
32. The word "occupancy" is defined under section 2(22),
which means a portion of land held by an occupant.
"Occupant" is defined under section 2(23), which means a
holder in actual possession of unalienated land, other than
the occupancy as referred in the definition. The word
Page no. 45 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
"occupation" is defined under section 2(24) to mean
possession. Section 2(23) reads as under:
"Section 2 (23) "occupant" means a holder in actual
possession of unalienated land, other than a tenant or
Government lessee; provided that, where a holder in actual
possession is a tenant, the land holder or the superior
landlord, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the
occupant;"
33. Thus, in view of the definition of "occupant" read with
the definitions of "occupancy", "occupation", "to hold land" and
"holding", it is clear that a person in lawful possession means
a holder. The phrase holder of land is also defined under
section 2(12), which reads as under:
"2(12) "to hold land" or "to be a landholder or holder of land"
means to be lawfully in possession of land, whether such
possession is actual or not."
34. In the present case, the source of
possession/occupation of the Trust under the sanad of 1853
is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Trust was
always in lawful possession of the land proposed to be
Page no. 46 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
acquired. Hence, I see no fault in the order passed by the City
Survey Officer directing to allot the city survey number in the
name of the Trust as "original holder".
35. Admittedly, the Trust has always been in possession of
the said land in lieu of the Inam granted in 1853 by the
Chhatrapati Shahoo Maharaj. The Trust's title and occupancy
based on the Inam were never challenged. The corporation
entered into an agreement with the Trust to acquire the said
land for utilising the reservations for public purposes, as in the
Government record, the Trust's name was entered in respect
of the said land.
36. The dates and events discussed in the preceding
paragraphs reveal that the Corporation took over possession
but did not pay compensation, as the land was not allotted
any survey number. Hence, only with the object of enabling
the corporation to pay the compensation, a joint request was
made to survey the land. Accordingly, a survey was carried
out, and the MR Plan was prepared. This plan was never
challenged. Thereafter, the corporation applied for an
allotment of a survey number only to enable the Corporation
Page no. 47 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
to make payment towards compensation to the Trust.
37. Thus, the learned Minister correctly appreciated the
facts and the legal provisions and observed as follows:
(a) The City Survey Officer examined all the documents
produced by the Trust. The Corporation was
represented while carrying out the survey and never
raised any objection, and after the survey map was
prepared, the Corporation applied for allotment of the
survey number. Thus, as per the directions issued by
the Superintendent, it was obligatory on the City Survey
Officer to enter the name of the landholder while
allotting the survey number for preparing the property
card. Simply allotting a survey number would have been
redundant, as the purpose of allotting the survey
number was to make a payment towards the
compensation amount.
(b) As per Government Order dated 20th September
1984, the Talathi was authorised to collect revenue of
the villages granted to the Trust as Inam, and this order
included Bhosari village, where the said land under
acquisition is situated. Out of the lands granted to the
Trust, the civil suits for the lands at village Siddhatek
and Morgav were decided in favour of the Trust,
rejecting the objections raised by the State
Page no. 48 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Government. In revenue proceedings for the lands at
village Mulshi also the Trust's contentions regarding title
based on the same documents were accepted.
(c) The Lake area at Bhosari village was used for
public purposes and was not assessed. In view of the
change in the use also the purpose is for public utility
which is ignored by the DDLR and he has erroneously
held that a resurvey was necessary. DDLR failed to
appreciate the title documents. In response to the
Corporation's proposal for the grant of TDR to the Trust
in lieu of monetary consideration, the proposal was
accepted by the Town Planning Department on 12 th
April 2017, subject to verification of title from the
revenue department. In view of setting aside the
DDLR's Order dated 6th June 2017, the Corporation
should take steps for the grant of TDR as per the order
dated 12th April 2017.
38. It was also submitted on behalf of the Corporation that
the said land is shown with the remark " Shurakutte" in the
record, which is a term applied to villages or estates of which
revenue is shared with the government; hence, a resurvey of
the land is necessary. In my view, this remark also supports
the Trust's claim to the land, given the sanad granted by the
Page no. 49 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Shaoo Raja in 1853 and confirmed by the British and Indian
Governments through the issuance of the Inam Decree and
the entry of the Trust's name in the alienation register. The
City Survey Officer has correctly appreciated the record and,
considering the directions issued by the Superintendent,
rightly directed to enter the name of the Trust as the original
holder by allotting the city survey number to the said land. The
Order of the City Survey Officer is rightly confirmed by the
District Superintendent. The learned Minister correctly
appreciated the facts and the legal provisions and set aside
the Order by the DDLR and confirmed the Orders by the City
Survey Officer and the District Superintendent. Therefore, I
see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
39. This is a classic case where the holder of the land is
deprived of all the rights by the dishonest conduct of a public
body and the government, after dispossessing the holder by
promising payment of compensation. It is necessary to make
a reference to the observations in the Order dated 2 nd May
2014 by the Division Bench of this court on the conduct of the
Corporation, which was the fourth respondent in the petition.
Page no. 50 of 51
6-WP-8968-2018
Paragraph 10 reads as under:
"The petitioner has been deprived of a very valuable
land in its possession without payment of any
compensation. There is no acquisition of the said land
made under the said Act of 1894. Therefore, the action
of the fourth Respondent is in breach of Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India."
40. Despite the directions issued by the Division Bench of
this Court on 2nd May 2014, even after a lapse of more than a
decade, the Trust is still deprived of its rights and no
compensation is paid, although the possession was taken
over by the Corporation twenty-six years back in 1999.
41. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is
dismissed.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 51 of 51
