Dismissed

Shaikh Fattu Shaikh Nasir and Ors. v. the Additional Commissioner, Abad Div and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2013WP/652/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition assailing a mutation entry that allegedly reduced the petitioners' land area. The Court held the entry was valid as the land cost was deposited after the allottee's death, ruling that revenue entries are fiscal and disputes regarding allotted land lie with the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs awarded.

Shaikh Fattu Shaikh Nasir and Ors. Vs the Additional… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 652.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 652 OF 2013

¶5

Shaikh Fattu Shaikh Nasir & Ors. V/s Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad & Ors.

¶6

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 06/03/2013

¶7

Mr. G.N.Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for Resp. No. 6.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The petitioners had assailed mutation entry effected in favour of present respondent No. 6 vide mutation entry No. 1817. The Revision filed by the petitioners is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶10

Mr. G.N.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the procedure as laid down U/s 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was not followed. By effecting the mutation entry in the name of respondent No. 6, the area of the petitioners is reduced. This is done behind the back of the

¶11

2 W.P. 652.2013

¶12

petitioners. No notice was issued nor any hearing was given. The same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that even the Commissioner in his Judgment has not considered this aspect and has not discussed about it. The learned counsel submits that the area of the petitioners could not have been reduced. As per the contention of the respondent, the land has been allotted to the respondent No. 6's father in the year 1983. Even the possession receipt is executed in the year 1983. Still the name of the present petitioners continued in the revenue record. For the first time, in the year 2004, the area of the petitioners was reduced. As the procedure contemplated is not followed, the order is bad in law.

¶13

Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 supports the order.

¶14

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited one. The revisional authority has observed that the land was allotted to Gundaji in the year 1983. However, it is the respondent No. 5, who has deposited the balance amount of ` 4,692/- [ Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Two only ] towards the cost of the land to the Tahsildar. Thereafter, the Tahsildar vide his letter dated 26/07/2003 submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Officer for mutating the name of respondent No. 6. Pursuant thereto the

¶15

3 W.P. 652.2013

¶16

name of the petitioner is mutated. It would be seen that though the land was allotted to Gundaji in the year 1983, still the total amount was deposited only after the death of Gundaji and thereafter the Tahsildar issued letter to the Sub Divisional Officer for mutating the name of respondent No. 6.

¶17

If the land is allotted by the Government to respondent No. 6's father and the compliance is made, thereafter the name has been rightly effected subsequently. It is the case that 5 Acres land out of S.No. 182 was acquired by the Government and out of that 3 Acres was allotted to Gundaji. If the petitioners have any grievance, the petitioners have remedy before the Civil Court. The revenue authority could not have entered into the said aspect. Even otherwise the revenue entries are meant for fiscal purpose.

¶18

In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶20

KNP/W.P. 652.2013

Shaikh Fattu Shaikh Nasir and Ors. v. the Additional Commissioner, Abad Div and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Fattu Shaikh Nasir and Ors. v. the Additional Commissioner, Abad Div 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

Janardhan Punjaram Gawli and Anr. Vs Nanasaheb Ghaganrao Jadhav and Ors.

Janardhan Punjaram Gawli and Anr. Vs Nanasaheb Ghaganrao Jadhav and Ors.

Shreeram Developers Thr. Its Partners Vs the Dhule Municipal Corp. and Ors.

The President, Indira Shikshan Prasarak Mahila Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Tukaram Narayan Bodake(Reddy) Vs Vijaymala Prabhakar Kulkarni and Ors.

M/S Ambarwadikar and Co. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.