Dismissed

Santosh Jaiwant Meher(Mali) and Ors. v. Bhimrao Laxman Meher(Mali) and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2013WP/75/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging mutation entries. The court held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate ownership and must wait for the pendency of a civil suit for partition before altering mutation records.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; revenue authorities' impugned orders affirmed.

Santosh Jaiwant Meher(Mali) and Ors. Vs Bhimrao Laxman… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 75.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2013

¶4

Santosh Jaiwant Meher (Mali) and others .. Petitioners Versus Bhimrao Laxman Meher (Mali) and others .. Respondents

¶5

Shri A. R. Devkate, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Shoyab Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶6

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH JANUARY, 2013.

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

. The dispute is about mutation entries. Shri Devkate, the learned counsel submits that after the death of Jaiwant, the names of petitioners should naturally appear in the revenue record as successors and the respondent No. 1 has no right to object to the said entry. The learned counsel further contends that, earlier also the respondent No. 1 had moved an application in respect of mutation entry No. 2100 in the name of their father. The objection was rejected. According to the learned counsel after the death of father of petitioners, the names of petitioners are

¶9

2 wp 75.13

¶10

required to be mutated and the names of petitioners recorded in the revenue record can be made subject to decision of civil suit, but the name of the present respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to be recorded in absence of their rights been decided. The learned counsel submits that the objection on the part of the respondent No. 1 is erroneous. There is no reason not to record the names of petitioners. The Courts below have failed to consider that the petitioners' father has paid the occupancy price and pursuant thereto they had the absolute right and interest in the said property.

¶11

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supports the order and submits that the mutation entry No. 2100 in the name of the petitioners father was in the capacity of the karta of the family.

¶12

It is not disputed between the parties that the present respondent No. 1 has filed suit for partition and separate possession bearing R.C.S. No. 21/2001 and the same is pending adjudication. It is trite that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on the revenue authorities. The mutation entries are required to be taken as per the dictum of the Civil Court in the civil proceedings.

¶13

3 wp 75.13

¶14

The revenue authorities cannot decide about the ownership rights of the parties in the property. Moreover, the entries in the revenue record are meant only for fiscal purpose.

¶15

It has been observed that the name of Jaywant was recorded as karta of the family. The Appellate Court and the Revisional Court have concurrently held about the rights of the parties.

¶16

In view of the same, I do not see any error committed by the revenue authorities while passing the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶17

It is clarified that the judgment passed by the revenue authorities regarding rights of the parties interse would always be subject to the decision given by the Civil Court in the pending civil litigation. After the civil suit is decided, the revenue authorities shall record the mutation entries pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court.

¶18

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶19

bsb/Jan. 13

Santosh Jaiwant Meher(Mali) and Ors. v. Bhimrao Laxman Meher(Mali) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Jaiwant Meher(Mali) and Ors. v. Bhimrao Laxman Meher(Mali) 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

Rangnath Damu Kajale and Anothers. Vs Ashok Tatyaba Kajale and Another.

Shaikh Chand Sk.Peeran(Decd)Lrs Shaikh Isa and Ors. Vs Ysin Badrudidn(Decd)Lrs Mumtaj Bee and Ors.

Shaligram Shankarrao Deshmukh Vs Shivajirao Shankarrao Deshmukh and Ors.

Mangalbai Bhujang Chavan and Anr. Vs Balaji Hariba Kasture and Ors.

Bhagchand Chovithram Chugani Vs Shrinath Urban Co-Op Credit Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sayyad Noora Syd. Nabi Manyar and Ors.