Bombay High Court
Shri Pandurang Gopal Mhatre (Decd) By ... vs M/S. Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd on 20 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:8174
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5018 OF 2000
1. Shri. Pandurang Gopal Mhatre,
deceased
through legal heirs.
1-A) Smt. Laxmibai Pandurang
Mhatre,
1-B) Bhanudas Pandurang Mhatre
1-C) Hemant Pandurang Mhatre,
1-D) Sulbha Kamalakar Patil,
1-E) Bharati Pandurang Mhatre,
1-F) Alka Pandurang Mhatre, ...Petitioners
V/s.
1. M/s Veekaylal Investment
2. A. Majeed Patka.
3. Anwar Haji Alli Mohammed.
4. Salim Daud Haji Ali Mohamed.
5. Court Receiver, High Court
6. Smt. Pushpa Manohar Dawane
Prop. of M/s Shree Ganesh Developer ...Respondents
______________
Ms. Shakuntala A. Mudbidri with Ms. Sonia Miskin and Mr.
Pritesh Bohade for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rajeev R. Sharma for Respondent No.1
Mr. Sachin Shetye, with Mr. Amar Parsekar for the Intervener.
______________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment reserved on : 7 February 2025.
Digitally
signed by
MEGHA
Judgment pronounced on : 20 February 2025.
MEGHA SHREEDHAR
SHREEDHAR PARAB
PARAB Date:
2025.02.20
16:45:37
+0530
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
Judgment :
1) Petitioners have filed this Petition challenging the
judgment and order dated 27 December 1996 passed by the
President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (MRT),
allowing the Revision Application preferred by Respondent No.1
and setting aside order dated 15 March 1991 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District (SDO) and
dismissing tenancy case preferred by the Petitioners for fixation
of purchase price of the land under Section 32G of the
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (MTAL
Act).
2) Petitioners claim to be lawful tenants of agricultural land
bearing Survey No.340, Hissa No.2, Village-Dahisar, Mumbai. It
is claimed that the land was in personal cultivation of Petitioners
and their forefathers since the year 1955 as tenants thereof.
Petitioners therefore filed an Application on 16 October 1986
before Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Borivali
(ALT) seeking a declaration of tenancy under Section 70(b) and
for fixation of purchase price of the land under Section 32G of the
MTAL Act. In the said tenancy case, Court Receiver of this Court
was impleaded as party Respondent on account of pendency of
Suit No.3415 of 1947 in this Court. It appears that in the said
Suit (Bai Fatmabai Widow of Haji Alimohamed Haji Casaum
and others V/s. Bai Zulekhabai widow of Dawood Haji Cassum
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
and others) the Court Receiver was appointed in respect of vast
tract of land including the tenanted land. The ALT proceeded to
allow the Application by order dated 6 March 1987 holding that
Pandurang Gopal Mhatre was the tenant in respect of the land
and proceeded to fix purchase price thereof under the provisions
of Section 32G of the MTAL Act.
3) It appears that in pursuance of order dated 30 March
1962 passed in Suit No.3415 of 1947, land admeasuring 624
acres, including tenanted land, was purchased by M/s. Veekaylal
Investment Co. (Private) Limited (M/s. Veekaylal) vide
Certificate of Sale dated 5 May 1970. This is how M/s. Veekaylal
claimed ownership in respect of the tenanted land and disputed
the tenancy claim of Pandurang Gopal Mhatre. M/s. Veekaylal
accordingly filed Appeals before the SDO challenging the order
dated 6 March 1987 passed by the ALT complaining that it never
received notice in respect of tenancy proceedings initiated by the
Petitioners. The Appeals preferred by M/s. Veekaylal came to be
dismissed by the SDO by order dated 15 March 1991, thereby
confirming ALT's order dated 6 March 1987. M/s. Veekaylal
thereafter filed a Revision before the MRT challenging the order
passed by the SDO. The MRT has allowed the Revision preferred
by M/s. Veekaylal and has set aside the orders passed by the
SDO and ALT thereby dismissing the Applications preferred by
the Petitioners under Sections 70(b) and 32G of the MTAL Act.
The legal heirs of Pandurang Gopal Mhatre are aggrieved by
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
order dated 27 December 1996 passed by the MRT and have
accordingly filed the present Petition.
4) The Petition got dismissed by conditional order dated 20
March 2001 as Petitioners had failed to serve the Respondents.
Civil Application No.3066 of 2015 was filed for restoration, which
came to be allowed by order dated 29 November 2016 and the
Petition was restored. However, during the period of dismissal of
the Petition, Respondent No.6- Smt. Pushpa Manohar Dawane
Proprietor of M/s Shree Ganesh Developer claims to have
purchased portion of the land admeasuring 3796 sq.mtrs and
3352 sq.mtrs vide Agreements dated 20 September 2002.
Accordingly Respondent No.6 filed Application seeking
intervention in the Petition and accordingly Respondent No.6 is
impleaded in the present Petition.
5) Ms. Mudbidri, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners would submit that the MRT has erred in setting aside
well considered decisions of the ALT and SDO. That the ALT and
SDO had recorded findings of fact that the predecessors of the
Petitioners have been cultivating the land as tenants. She would
submit that the revenue entries undoubtedly show personal
cultivation of the land by the forefathers of the Petitioner. She
would rely upon Mutation Entry No.1566 dated 16 September
1956 by which name of Pandurang Gopal Mhatre was mutated
as tenant in respect of land bearing Survey No.340. She would
submit that the said Mutation Entry No.1566 was not challenged
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
by any person and has attained finality. She would also rely upon
entries in cultivation column to prove personal cultivation of land
by Pandurang Gopal Mhatre. She would therefore submit that
the ALT and SDO have rightly relied upon revenue records for
the purpose of recording finding of fact about personal cultivation
of land by Pandurang Gopal Mhatre. That the MRT has
erroneously held that there is absolutely no evidence in support
of tenancy claim of Petitioners. That the MRT has erred in
ignoring documentary evidence suggesting personal cultivation
of the land by Pandurang Gopal Mhatre. That the MRT has
erroneously allowed the Revision on the ground of failure to
issue public notice ignoring the position that the order of
Tehsildar shows issuance of notice to the concerned parties. She
would submit that MRT has erroneously relied upon order
passed by this Court, which permitted filing of proceedings
under Section 70(b) of the MTAL Act before 31 July 1986. That
no such permission was necessary. That therefore slight delay in
filing the proceedings could not have been a ground for setting
aside well considered decision of ALT and Tehsildar.
6) Ms. Mudbidri would further submit that Respondent
No.1 does not have a semblance of right in the tenanted lands.
That no conveyance has been executed in favour of Respondent
No.1 nor its name is entered into the revenue records. That
therefore the alleged purchase of portion of land by Respondent
No.6 is otherwise void. Ms. Mudbidri would further submit that
in pursuance of order passed by the Alt on 6 March 1987,
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
certificate of purchase under Section 32M of the MTAL Act was
issued on 23 April 1987 after payment of purchase price by Mr.
Pandurang Gopal Mhatre and that he accordingly became owner
of the tenanted land. That 32M Certificate dated 23 April 1987
has not been challenged either by Respondent No.1 or by
Respondent No.6 and that therefore ownership of Petitioners in
respect of land in question cannot really be questioned. That
mere challenge to order dated 6 March 1987 was not sufficient
and the Certificate of Purchase dated 23 April 1987 was also
required to be challenged. She would accordingly pray for setting
aside order passed by the MRT.
7) Petition is opposed by Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, who would submit that the land
has been purchased by Respondent No.1 in the year 1962 and
Petitioners deliberately did not implead Respondent No.1 in
Applications filed before the ALT. That Petitioners sought specific
permission from this Court for initiation of proceedings under
Sections 70(b) and 32G of the MTAL Act and were thus fully
aware of the purchase of the land by Respondent No.1, despite
which, they deliberately did not implead Respondent No.1 in the
proceedings initiated by them. That therefore the order passed by
the ALT on 6 March 1987 being in breach of principles of natural
justice, the same has rightly been set aside by the MRT. That the
ALT's order is passed ex-parte without there being any
opposition to the tenancy claim of the Petitioners. He would take
me through Section 32G of the MTAL Act in support of his
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
contention that it was incumbent on the ALT to issue notices to
all interested persons. He would submit that there is otherwise
no question of Pandurang Mhatre tilling the land on 1 April 1957
as the Court Receiver was in possession thereof as on the said
date. He would submit that presumption of tenancy cannot be
raised merely on the basis of mutation entries. That no evidence
of payment of rent or any rent agreement is produced to support
the claim of tenancy. That there is nothing on record to indicate
that any person had lawfully inducted Petitioners or their
forefathers to cultivate the land. Petitioners themselves are not
sure as to who exactly was their landlord. The theory of
induction as tenants in the year 1955 is otherwise unbelievable
in the light of the possession of the land by Court Receiver on
that date. That therefore mutation entries would at the highest
indicate unlawful possession of Petitioners and their forefathers
in respect of land, which would not make them tenant within the
meaning of Section 2(18) of the MTAL Act. He would therefore
submit that no interference is warranted in the impugned order
passed by the MRT which does not suffer from any grave error or
any element of perversity warranting exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. He would pray for dismissal of the Petition.
8) Mr. Shetye, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.6 would also oppose the Petition. He would
submit that Respondent No.6 is the lawful purchaser of portion
of the concerned land vide instrument executed in his favour in
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
the year 2002. That declaration of tenancy claim of Petitioners
would cause serious prejudice to the purchase transaction
executed in favour of Respondent No.6. That since Suit in respect
of the land has been pending since 1947 and since Court
Receiver was appointed in respect of the land in question, it was
necessary for the Petitioners to have their rights adjudicated in
that Suit by filing an Application for intervention therein. That
the land has been lawfully sold to Respondent No.1 in court
conducted auction in the year 1962. That if Petitioners or their
forefathers were tenants in respect of the land in question, they
ought to have deposited the rent in the Court at least at some
point of time. That Respondent No.6 is put in physical possession
of the land in the year 2002 and has been possessing the same
since then thereby completely demolishing the so called claim of
personal cultivation by the Petitioners. He would accordingly
pray for dismissal of the Petition.
9) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
10) The case presents a unique conundrum as late
Pandurang Gopal Mhatre raised claim for tenancy in respect of
land bearing Survey No.340, Hissa No.2 admeasuring about 1
acre and 30 gunthas by filing applications under Section 70(b) for
declaration of tenancy and under Section 32G for fixation of
purchase price in the year 1986, when Suit No.3415 of 1947 was
already pending before this Court in respect of large tract of land
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
including Survey No.340/2 admeasuring 1 acre 30 guntha. It
appears that the entire land admeasuring about 624 acres was
put in the management of the Court Receiver. Late Pandurang
Gopal Mhatre was apparently aware about the position that the
Court Receiver was managing his land which is a reason why he
impleaded the Court Receiver as Respondent No.4 in his
Applications preferred before the ALT. In fact, it appears that
late Pandurang Gopal Mhatre was advised to file an application
before this Court seeking permission to file proceedings under
Sections 70(b) and 32G of the MTAL Act before the ALT. This
Court passed order dated 20 June 1986 permitting late
Pandurang Gopal Mhatre to initiate proceedings before the ALT
on 31 July 1986. The proceedings under Sections 70(b) and 32G
of the MTAL Act thus appear to be initiated not only with full
knowledge of pendency of Suit in this Court but were in fact
initiated after seeking permission of this Court. It appears that
this Court had directed the Court Receiver to auction land
admeasuring 624 acres. The Court Receiver conducted auction in
which Mr. K. Lalchand gave an offer of 13,50,000/- for purchase
of the said land admeasuring 624 acres. This Court accordingly
passed order dated 30 March 1962 permitting the Court Receiver
to complete the sale in favour of K. Lalchand and or his
nominees. Respondent No.1 relies upon Certificate dated 5 May
1970 issued by the Court Receiver showing that possession of the
land admeasuring 624 acres was handed over to Respondent
No.1 as purchasers after receipt of the entire amount of
consideration. This is how Respondent No.1 claims ownership in
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
respect of the land in question. However, it is a matter of
admitted fact that neither any Deed of Conveyance nor Sale
Certificate has been registered thereby completing the
transaction of sale in favour of Respondent No.1. In my view
however, it is not necessary to delve deeper into the aspect of
completion of purchase transaction in favour of Respondent No.1
for deciding the issue at hand. The issue involved in the present
Petition is about tenancy claim of late Pandurang Gopal Mhatre.
What needs to be considered is to whether he was personally
cultivating the land as on the tiller's day of 1 April 1957.
Therefore, mere purchase of larger portion of land of 624 acres by
Respondent No.1 during 1963-1970 or subsequent purchase of
smaller portion of land by Respondent No.6 in the year 2002 are
not really relevant for deciding the issue involved in the present
Petition.
11) To buttress their claim of personal cultivation of land,
heirs of Pandurang Gopal Mhatre relied upon various mutation
entries as well as entries in the cultivation column. Perusal of
the Mutation Entry No.1566 dated 16 September 1956 would
indicate that the name of Pandurang Gopal Mhatre was already
appearing in Village Form No.7 as tenant by Mutation Entry
No.1566. It was observed that his entry as a tenant in Village
Form No.7 was erroneous and that since he was personally
cultivating the land, his name was required to be entered into
Village Form No.7A. Accordingly, his name came to be entered
in the Revenue Records as an actual cultivator in respect of land
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
bearing Survey No.340(part). There is another Mutation Entry
No.1665 dated 28 August 1957 by which name of Pandurang
Gopal Mhatre was included as ordinary tenant personally
cultivating the land bearing Survey No.340 (part).
12) Ms. Mudbidri has also relied upon entries in cultivation
column showing that Pandurang Gopal Mhatre was personally
cultivating the land. However, the said entries are not of much
relevance as they are entries of 1970- 71 to 1987-88. The entry
in the cultivation column may not be relevant for the purpose of
inferring personal cultivation as on 1 April 1957. However, the
same would indicate that the personal cultivation has continued
right upto 1987-88. In my view therefore, there is sufficient
documentary evidence on record to indicate personal cultivation
of the land by Pandurang Gopal Mhatre. Neither the Court
Receiver nor Respondent No.1 has ever filed any proceedings for
deletion of name of Pandurang Gopal Mhatre as a tenant in
respect of the land. Merely because large tract of land
admeasuring 624 acres was in the management of the Court
Receiver and is shown to have been subsequently put in
possession of Respondent No.1 in the year 1970, it becomes
difficult to infer that Pandurang Gopal Mhatre was not
personally cultivating the land as on tiller's day i.e. 1 April 1957.
If Respondent No.1 physically possessed the land after 1970, why
it did not initiate any proceedings for deletion of entries in the
'Cultivation' column has not been explained in any manner.
There is every possibility that personal possession and
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
cultivation of the land by Pandurang Gopal Mhatre was never
disturbed even after possession of vast portion of land
admeasuring 624 acres was shown to have been handed over by
the Court Receiver to Respondent No. 1 on 5 May 1970. It
therefore becomes difficult to believe that cultivation of tenanted
lands got discontinued merely on the basis of issuance of
Certificate dated 5 May 1970 by the Court Receiver.
13) It is strenuously submitted on behalf of Respondent
Nos. 1 to 6 that notice of proceedings under Sections 70(b) and
32G of the MTAL Act was not served on Respondent No. 1 and
that therefore, the order passed by the ALT ought to have been
set aside by the SDO. Reliance is placed on provisions of Section
32G of the MTAL Act, which provides thus:
32G. Tribunal to issue notices and determine price of
land to be paid by tenants
(1) As soon as may be after the tillers' day the Tribunal shall
publish or cause to be published a public notice in the
prescribed form in each its jurisdiction calling upon, -
(a) all tenants who under section 32 are deemed to have
purchased the lands,
(b) all landlords of such lands, and
(c) all other persons interested therein,
to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. The
Tribunal shall issue a notice individually to each such tenant,
landlord and also, as far as practicable, other persons calling
upon each of them to appear before it on the date specified in
the public notice.
(2) The Tribunal shall record in the prescribed manner the
statement of the tenant whether he is or is not willing to
purchase the land held by him as a tenant.
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
(3) Where any tenant fails to appear or makes a statement that
he is not willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by an
order in writing declare that such tenant is not willing to
purchase the land and that the purchase is ineffective:
Provided that if such order is passed in default of the
appearance of any party, the Tribunal shall communicate such
order to the parties and any party on whose default the order
was passed may within 60 days from the date on which the
order was communicated to him apply for the review of the
same.
(4) If a tenant is willing to purchase, the Tribunal shall, after
giving an opportunity to the tenant and landlord and all other
persons interested in such land to be heard and after holding
an inquiry, determine the purchase price of such land in
accordance with the provisions of section 32-H of sub- section
(3) of section 63А :
Provided that where the purchase price in accordance
with the provisions of section 32-H is mutually agreed upon by
the landlord and the tenant, the Tribunal after satisfying itself
in such manner as may be prescribed that the tenant's consent
to the agreement is voluntary may make an order determining
the purchase price and providing for its payment in accordance
with such agreement.
(5) In the case of a tenant who is deemed to have
purchased the land on the postponed date the Tribunal shall,
as soon as may be after such date determine the price of the
land.
(6) If any land which, by or under the provisions of any of
the Land Tenures Abolition Acts referred to in Schedule III to
this Act, is regranted to the holder thereof on condition that it
was not transferable, such condition shall not be deemed to
affect the right of any person holding such land on lease
created before the regrant and such person shall as a tenant be
deemed to have purchased the land under this section, as if the
condition that it was not transferable was not the condition of
regrant.
14) Thus, under provisions of Sub-Section 1 of Section 32G of
the MTAL Act what is required to be done is cause of publication
of public notice in prescribed form in each village. Such notice
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
should call upon the tenants, landlords and all other interested
persons to appear before the ALT on the dates specified in the
notice. Provisions of Section 32G further contemplates issuance
of individual notice to each tenant, landlord and also to other
persons, as far as practicable. So far as tenants and landlords
are concerned, service of individual notice appears to be
mandatory. However, so far as 'all other persons' are concerned
Sub-Section 1 of Section 32G of the MTAL Act uses the word 'as
far as practicable'.
15) In the present case, late Pandurang Gopal Mhatre had
impleaded the Court Receiver as opponent No.4 to the
proceedings filed before the ALT. The ALT's order records that
notice was issued to all the opponents fixing the date of hearing
on 30 January 1987. The MRT has however, recorded a finding
'no public notice has been issued and published'. Thus, the flaw
noticed by the MRT is not about entitlement of Respondent No.1
to be served with individual notice under Sub-Section (1) of
Section 32G, but one of the grounds on which the MRT has
interfered with the orders of ALT and SDO is failure to issue and
publish a 'public notice'. In my view, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case, impleadment of
Court Receiver as opponent No.4 to the proceedings initiated by
Pandurang Gopal Mhatre and service of individual notice on the
Court Receiver was sufficient compliance. Though late
Pandurang Gopal Mhatre sought permission of this Court for
filing of proceedings under Sections 70(b) and 32G of the MTAL
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
Act, there is nothing on record to indicate that he was aware of
the fact that the land was purchased by Respondent No.1. Since
the Court Receiver was appointed in respect of the land, the
tenant rightly impleaded the Court Receiver to the proceedings
filed by him. Also of relevance is the fact that the purchase
transaction in favour of Respondent No.1 is otherwise not
complete as Certificate of Sale / Conveyance Deed has not been
registered. It therefore becomes difficult to hold that Respondent
No.1 would otherwise fit into the expression 'other persons
interested' within the meaning of Sub-Section 1 of Section 32G of
the MTAL Act. The tenant took due care of impleading the Court
Receiver to the proceedings initiated by him and this, in my view,
was sufficient compliance with provisions of Section 32G of the
MTAL Act.
16) Mr. Sharma has relied upon judgment of this Court in
Dhanwant Parashram Kadam V/s. Smt. Putlabai Gulab
Kadam and Ors.1 in support of his contention that notice must
be issued to all interested persons before conduct of enquiry
under Section 32G of the MTAL Act. However, as observed above
the tenant possibly did not have knowledge of alleged purchase
transaction by Respondent No.1 and in any case the said
purchase transaction is yet to fructify into a complete transfer of
title in favour of Respondent No.1. In my view therefore, non-
impleadment of Respondent No.1 to the proceedings initiated by
the tenant or non-service of individual notice to him would not
amount to violation of any statutory provision for setting aside
1 2009(5) Mh.L.J. 585
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
the order passed by the ALT. MRT has thus erred in interfering
in the orders passed by SDO and ALT on this ground.
17) Another ground on which the MRT has interfered with
the orders passed by the ALT and SDO is crossing of time limit
prescribed by this Court while granting permission to the tenant
for filing of applications under Sections 70(b) and 32G of the
MTAL Act. It appears that late Pandurang Gopal Mhatre had
filed application in the pending Suit seeking permission to file
proceedings qua his tenancy claim and this Court had passed
order dated 20 June 1986 in Suit No.3415 of 1947 granting
permission to initiate such proceedings on or before 31 July 1986.
Proceedings were however initiated by Pandurang Gopal Mhatre
on 16 October 1986. The MRT has held that initiation of
proceedings under Sections 70(b) and 32G of the MTAL Act
beyond the prescribed time limit were time barred. In my view,
no permission was required from this Court in pending Suit
No.3415 of 1947 for raising of tenancy claim by late Pandurang
Gopal Mhatre. If he is ultimately held as a tenant personally
cultivating the land as on 1 April 1957, he has already attained
the status of deemed purchaser under the provisions of Section
32 of the MTAL Act. The dispute before this Court was qua
ownership of larger portion of land and while deciding the said
ownership issue, the question of tenant's claim in respect of some
portion of the suit land was outside the scope of enquiry in that
Suit. Even otherwise this Court, while deciding the Suit, would
not have jurisdiction to decide the tenancy claim under
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
provisions of Section 85 of the MTAL Act. Even if Pandurang
Gopal Mhatre was to be impleaded as party Defendant to the
said Suit, the moment he raised a tenancy claim, such claim was
required to be referred under Section 85A of the MTAL Act to the
authority competent to settle or deal with the issue of tenancy. In
my view therefore permission granted by this Court, which was
not even necessary, to lodge a tenancy claim before 31 July 1986
did not render proceedings filed beyond 31 July 1986 a nullity.
The ALT possesses inherent jurisdiction to decide the question of
tenancy claim. The claim filed by Pandurang Gopal Mhatre
under Section 70(b) or 32G of the MTAL Act were otherwise not
barred by limitation. In that view of the matter, mere initiation
of tenancy claim after 31 July 1986 could not have been a reason
for not deciding the tenancy claim on merits. The MRT in my
view has grossly erred in holding that the tenancy claim of
Pandurang Gopal Mhatre was time barred.
18) Respondent No.6 claims ownership in respect of the
tenanted land on the strength of Agreements dated 20
September 2002. However, copies of the said agreements
produced alongwith Intervention Application filed by Respondent
No.1 does not indicate that the same are properly stamped or
registered. The title of Respondent No.1 itself is yet to be
perfected by registration of Certificate of Sale /Deed of
Conveyance in its favour. It therefore, becomes highly
questionable as to whether title in respect of land admeasuring
3796 sq.mtrs and 3352 sq. mtrs. would otherwise pass on to
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
Respondent No.6. However, the enquiry in the present case does
not extend to the issue of valid acquisition of title by Respondent
No.6 and it is not necessary to delve deeper into the said aspect.
The said issue can be decided if and when Respondent No.6 files
a declaratory Suit in that regard. However, it appears that
Respondent No.6 has filed a Suit for injunction against
Petitioners being S.C. Suit No.502 of 2013 in the City Civil
Court, Mumbai. She had taken out Notice of Motion No.392 of
2013 in that Suit seeking temporary injunction. Though
temporary injunction appears to have been granted in favour of
Respondent No.6, ultimately Suit No. 502 of 2013 came to be
dismissed vide decree dated 5 May 2022. Thus, the claim of
possession of purchased portion of land by Respondent No.6
appears to be negatived by the Trial Court and the decree is
apparently pending in appeal.
19) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of
the view that the MRT has grossly erred in reversing the
concurrent findings recorded by the ALT and SDO. The order
passed by the MRT is indefensible and liable to be set aside.
20) The Petition accordingly succeeds, and I proceed to pass
the following order:
(i) Judgment and order dated 27 December 1996
passed by the MRT in Revision Application No.142
of 1995 is set aside.
20 February 2025
Megha wp_5018_2000_fc.docx
(ii) Orders dated 15 March 1991 passed by the SDO
and order dated 6 March 1987 passed by the ALT
are confirmed.
21) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. Rule is made
absolute. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, there shall be no orders as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
22) After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Sharma, the
learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 prays for stay of
the judgment for a period of four weeks. The request is opposed
by Ms. Mudbidri appearing for the Petitioners. There is nothing
on record to indicate that the physical possession of the land was
taken over by the Respondent No.1, in whose favour the
transaction of sale is yet to be completed. So far as Respondent
No.6 is concerned, the Agreement executed in her favour is not
properly stamped nor registered. In that view of the matter, it
becomes too difficult to believe that the possession of the land
could be either with Respondent No.1 or with Respondent No.6.
In that view of the matter, request for stay is rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
20 February 2025
