Dismissed

Janab Saleem Gajbar Mulla v. Mairal Ganesh Kulkarni

Bombay HC8 Oct 2014CAW/1051/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition challenging a mutation entry and Government Resolution. It held that the Maharastra Land Revenue Code provides adequate remedies for such challenges and that mutation entries do not determine title. The petition for possession protection was disposed of without adjudication on the title or possession issue.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Article 226 dismissed; benefits of remedies kept open; Civil Application disposed of without adjudication on possession.

Janab Saleem Gajbar Mulla Vs Mairal Ganesh Kulkarni — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-349.14

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.349 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1051 OF 2014 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.349 OF 2014

¶7

Mairal Ganesh Kulkarni … Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai a/w Ms. Vrushali L. Maindad, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Shripal Koregave, for the Applicant/Intervenor in CAW No.1051 of 2014.

¶11

Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP, for State.

¶12

Mr. Majahid Shakeel Ansari i/by Mr. R.M. Momin, for Respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 8^th OCTOBER, 2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶16

Apart from the challenge to the Government Resolution, there is a challenge to the mutation entry which is made on the basis of the order of the Tahasildar. The order of Tahasildar has been referred to in the mutation entry which is the subject matter of challenge. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that even assuming that the Government Resolution dated 30th July, 2010 is otherwise valid, the same contemplates an enquiry. He invited our

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

2 wp-349.14

¶19

attention to the report submitted by the Circle Officer which supports the stand of the Petitioner that the possession of the Petitioner is not unauthorised.

¶20

If the order of the Tahasildar on the basis of which the mutation entry is made is illegal or if the same is passed by ignoring the the report submitted by the Circle Officer, a remedy of Appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the said Code”) is available to the Petitioner. By adopting the appropriate remedy, the Petitioner can always contend that the order by the Tahasildar is contrary to the Government Resolution as the same has been allegedly made without holding a proper enquiry.

¶21

Apart from the remedy of challenging the order as well as mutation entry by taking recourse to the remedies under the said Code, the Petitioner can always establish his rights by approaching the Civil Court.

¶22

It is well settled that the authorities under the said Code which are empowered to make mutation entries have no power to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties to an the immovable property. The impugned mutation entry does not decide the issue of title.

2 of 3

wp-349.14

In view of the availability of the remedies, as of today, no case is made out for entertaining this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we dispose of the Petition by keeping the remedies of the Petitioner expressly open. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks protection to the possession of the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is in possession, it is obvious that only on the basis of the mutation entry, the Petitioner cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. However, we make it clear the we have made no adjudication on the issue of possession. Civil Application No.1051 of 2014 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶27

(G.S. KULKARNI, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶28

3 of 3

Janab Saleem Gajbar Mulla v. Mairal Ganesh Kulkarni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janab Saleem Gajbar Mulla v. Mairal Ganesh Kulkarni

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. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Vikramsingh Jaysingrao Ghatge Vs the Municipal Council, Kagal and Ors.

Parshuram Bhagoji Telange Vs Mr. Sachin Vasant Bhosale and Ors.

Mairal Ganesh Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue of Forest Dept and Ors.

Ramesh Nagnath Kadam Vs the Returning Officer and Ors.

Ramesh Nagnath Kadam Vs the Returning Officer and Ors.