Allowed

Smt. Manjula Ashwin Agarwal v. Shri. Mahadu Jiva Chaudhari and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2013WP/3608/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed joint writ petitions challenging the rejection of intervention applications in a mutation matter. It held the petitioners, as successors to the landlords, were proper parties and quashed the order asking the Additional Commissioner to verify their bona fides.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned order quashed; applications for intervention allowed.

Smt. Manjula Ashwin Agarwal Vs Shri. Mahadu Jiva Chaudhari… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

3612-13-wp=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3612 OF 2013

¶4

Ashwin Pannalal Agarwal .. Petitioner v/s. Mahadu Jiva Chaudhari & Ors. ..Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3608 OF 2013

¶7

Manjula Ashwin Agarwal .. Petitioner v/s. Mahadu Jiva Chaudhari & Ors. ..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Sushant Prabhune with Abhijit S. Deshmukh for the petitioner Smt. Leela Malu for the respondent nos. 1 to 6.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 26^th JULY, 2013.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical and since they arise out of a common order of the Administrator and Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

¶12

The petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to be the bonafide purchasers of the property in dispute. Initially, the property was owned by the respondent nos.7 and 8. The respondent nos. 1 to 6 claimed to be the tenant purchasers under Section 32(G) of the

1 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

3612-13-wp=.doc

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. An order was passed in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 6 under Section 32(G) of the Act in the year 1966. Thereafter, some proceedings came up before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the Agriculture Lands Tribunal and Tahasildar, in order dated 20.06.1986, observed that since the respondent nos.1 to 6 were not in cultivating possession of the property, the property was directed to be removed from their possession so that the same could be handed over to the original owner. In the said order dated 20.06.1986, it was observed that the revenue records be mutated accordingly.

¶17

The respondent nos. 7 and 8 claimed that they were not aware of the order of the Agriculture Lands Tribunal dated 20.06.1986 and hence, they filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal filed by the respondent nos.7 and 8 and set aside the order of the Tahasildar dated 20.06.1986. The respondent nos.7 and 8 challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector reversed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, the respondent nos. 7 and 8 preferred a revision. In the said revision, the petitioners in both the writ petitions had filed the applications for intervention. It was the case of the petitioners that they were the bonafide purchasers of the property in dispute and it was necessary for the Additional

2 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

3612-13-wp=.doc

Commissioner to hear them before the revision filed by the respondent nos.1 to 6 was decided. The applications filed by the petitioners were however, dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the petitioners had not verified the title of the property before the purchase and they were not bonafide purchasers of the property. The petitioners have impugned the common order in the petitions.

¶22

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since the property has come in the ownership and possession of the petitioners from respondent nos. 7 and 8 and since the revision was filed by the respondent nos.1 to 6 against the respondent nos.7 and 8 i.e. land lords, the petitioners are necessary parties to the revision filed by the respondent nos.1 to 6. It is submitted that the Additional Commissioner could not have conducted an inquiry in regard to the question whether the petitioners were the bonafide purchasers of the property in dispute, or not. According to the petitioners, the Additional Commissioner erroneously relied on the order of the SubDivisional Officer, which was no longer in existence, in view of the order of the Additional Collector. In the facts of the case, according to the petitioners, they ought to have been joined as necessary parties.

¶23

On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 6 that the petitioners had not made any enquiry whatsoever before purchasing the properties from the purchasers of the property from the respondent nos.7 and 8. It is submitted that it was

3 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

3612-13-wp=.doc

necessary for the petitioners to have verified the record before purchasing the property in dispute. It is submitted that the property has changed hands within a short time. According to the respondent nos.1 to 6, they are in possession of the property and the petitioners are neither necessary parties nor proper parties. In a matter pertaining to mutation entry, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6, the petitioners could not have sought their joinder as a necessary parties.

¶28

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the Additional Commissioner was justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners. The revision application was filed by the respondent nos.1 to 6 against the land lords – respondent nos.7 and 8. The respondent nos.7 and 8 had sold the property to third parties and the petitioners were the purchasers of the same property from the third parties. Since the property which the petitioners have purchased was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner ought to have permitted the petitioners to intervene in the matter as they had stepped in the shoes of the original respondent nos.7 and 8. However, the Additional Commissioner erroneously considered whether the petitioners were the bonafide purchasers of the property or not. That question could not have been decided by the Additional Commissioner, as the petitioners were merely stepping into the shoes of the respondent nos.7 and 8 in the litigation. The Additional

4 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

3612-13-wp=.doc

Commissioner also wrongly considered some observations in the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, though the order was set aside by the Additional Collector. The reasons recorded by the Additional Commissioner for rejecting the applications for intervention are not just and proper. In the facts of the case, the applications filed by the petitioners ought to have been allowed. Even assuming that the proceedings were not in regard to the tenancy or ownership and were in regard to mutation, still the petitioners were the proper parties.

¶33

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The applications filed by the petitioners for intervention are allowed.

¶34

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶35

( VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶36

5 of 5

¶37

U.S.Jagtap

Smt. Manjula Ashwin Agarwal v. Shri. Mahadu Jiva Chaudhari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjula Ashwin Agarwal v. Shri. Mahadu Jiva Chaudhari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Hari Gopala Kadam Since Deceased His L.H. Lata Anil Kadam Vs Shri Jagannath Rama Kadam and Others.

Shri. Sunil Kamat Vs Prayagraj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Vardhaman Co-Operative Housing Society Vs Smt. Santosh Babubhai Sharma, through Cs. Babubhai B. Sharma and Ors.

Smt. Anita Raosaheb Nagargoge Vs the Secretary, Shikshan Sewak District Selection Committee, Raigad-Alibaug and Ors.

Sou. Mina Tukaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.