Writ Petition No. 8702 of 2012. Case: Karansing Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 8702 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.F. Shingare, Adv. and For Respondents: P.S. Patil, AGP |
| Judges | V. L. Achliya, J. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 149, 150, 150(1), 154, 328, 52; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 |
| Judgement Date | May 06, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
V. L. Achliya, J.
-
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
-
The petitioner claims to be owner of land bearing gat No. 12 admeasuring 1 H 62 R situated at village Ramrai, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad which he has purchased from respondent No. 7 for valuable consideration of Rs. 20 lakh vide registered sale deed executed on 22/1/2010(which is hereinafter referred as said land). The vendor of the petitioner i.e. the respondent No. 7 had purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 11/1/1982. Immediately after the purchase of said land, the name of respondent No. 7 was duly recorded in the revenue record. Since after purchase of said land, the respondent No. 7 was in physical possession and cultivating the land. He had also obtained loan of Rs. 1 lakh from Prerana Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad which was repaid in the year 2006 by providing the same as colateral security for the loan. Since respondent No. 7 was holding the clear and marketable title and the name of respondent No. 2 was also recorded in the revenue record as owner and in possession of said land the petitioner has purchased said land for which he has parted with consideration amount of Rs. 20 lakh to respondent No. 7.
-
According to the case set out by the petitioner, though the respondent No. 6 has no right, title and interest in the said land, still he prepared a bogus document in respect of said land and secured the loan from Bank of Maharashtra. Towards unpaid loan of said Bank, the proceeding was filed against respondent No. 6 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad. In said proceeding, the said property of respondent No. 7 was attached towards recovery of loan. The respondent No. 7 appeared in that matter and raised an objection to the attachment of the property by pointing that property is owned by him. Vide order dated 18/8/2009, the objection was upheld and the said property was released from attachment. The respondent No. 6 had challenged the order dated 18/8/2009 by filing Writ Petition No. 1270/2010 before this Court and same was dismissed on 13/9/2010 for want of removal of objection. Inspite of that the respondent No. 6 submitted an application in the year 2009 before the Tahsildar-respondent No. 5 for taking mutation entry in his name in the record of rights in respect of said land on the basis of alleged unregistered partition deed dated 26/3/1997. The application moved by respondent No. 6 was rejected by respondent No. 5 by order dated 31/12/2009. The order passed by the Tahsildar was challenged in Appeal by respondent No. 7 before the respondent No. 4 who in turn allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 12/3/2010. As against said order, the respondent No. 7 preferred appeal before respondent No. 3 which was rejected vide order dated 29/5/2010. In said appeal, first time the petitioner was made party. Lateron the revision preferred by petitioner against said order before the respondent No. 2 was also rejected by order dated 12/1/2011. The petitioner was not party before respondents No. 4 and 5. Still while passing orders by respondent No. 4, made certain observations and recorded findings as to right, title and interest of petitioner and also observed that the sale deed in his favour is illegal and hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Being aggrieved by such orders affecting his right and causing impact over Civil Suit filed by him the petitioner has filed this petition.
-
The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order passed by respondents No. 2 to 4 with contention that they have decided the matter as if they have authority to decide the right, title and interest of rival parties and also made observations affecting rights of petitioner. By referring various observations recorded by respondents No. 2 to 4 while passing the impugned orders, learned counsel has urged that those observations and findings recorded are not sustainable in law as respondents No. 2 to 4 have no authority in law to decide the right, title and interest of a person to the property and more particularly the petitioner who was not party to proceeding before respondent No. 4. He has submitted that the role attributed to the revenue authorities while dealing with application to make entries in the revenue record confined to entering ones name in the record of rights. They have no authority in law to decide the right, title and interest of such person in the property. So also...
To continue reading
Request your trial