Dismissed

Kashinath Wamnarao Anerao v. Sakharam Wamanrao Anerao and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2013WP/614/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged the dismissal of a revision regarding mutation entries. The court held that revenue authorities correctly noted that the title dispute must be resolved via a civil suit as the underlying sale deed remained unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Kashinath Wamnarao Anerao Vs Sakharam Wamanrao Anerao and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 614.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2013

¶4

Kashinath S/o Wamanrao Anerao .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sakharam S/o Wamanrao Anerao Died through L.Rs.

¶7

1A Shashikala W/o Sakharam Anerao and others .. Respondents

¶8

Shri Shivaji K. Naikwade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate h/f Shri G. V. Sukale, Advocate for Respondents.

¶9

Shri V. B. Ghatage, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD JANUARY, 2013.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

. The petitioner assails the order passed by the Commissioner, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority. The dispute appears to be about mutation entry.

¶13

Shri Naikwade, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶14

2 wp 614.13

¶15

submits that, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the year 1984. The original respondent No. 1 claimed to have purchased the property from the petitioner in the year 1977. His name was never recorded in the relevant record. According to the learned counsel, the said document could not have been considered after such a long slumber. The learned counsel submits that the authorities below have not considered the said aspect.

¶16

Shri Kale, the learned counsel submits that, by registered sale deed the property was purchased by Sakharam. The said sale deed was never challenged. The said sale deed was for an area of 42R and the mutation entry of said transaction was taken on 01.02.1984.

¶17

In view of the registered instrument of sale, the authority was duty bound to take the mutation entry. If the petitioner has any grievance about the legality and the validity of the sale deed, the petitioner has to get the declaration from the Civil Court. The revenue authorities are not competent to deal with the same.

¶18

The revenue entries would be governed by the decision in the civil suit. If any suit is filed or will be filed, then the revenue

¶19

3 wp 614.13

¶20

entries would always be subject to decision in the civil suit. The wit petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶21

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶22

bsb/Jan. 13

Kashinath Wamnarao Anerao v. Sakharam Wamanrao Anerao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Wamnarao Anerao v. Sakharam Wamanrao Anerao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pathan Ilyas Khan Jumma Khan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Syed Anwar Ali Syed Khader Ali Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Abdul Saleem Abdul Haleem and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Yeshwant Housing Co-Op Soc. Ltd. Vs Babruvahan Venkatrao Jadhav, Died and Ors.

Ashabai Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kashinath Wamnarao Anerao Vs Sakharam Wamanrao Anerao, Died Thr. L.Rs. Shashikala and Ors.