Allowed

Shri. Satish Babaso Desai v. Circle Officer, Circle Office, Kabnoor and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2014WP/2833/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Tahsildar's communication restricting mutation entry. The single-judge bench quashed the communication holding it illegal under Section 149 and 150 of the Land Revenue Code, 1966, and directed authorities to make a mutation entry register.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication quashed; direction given to authorities to make mutation entry in register within eight weeks and proceed under sub-section (2) of Section 150 of the LR Code.

Shri. Satish Babaso Desai Vs Circle Officer, Circle Office… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

WP2833.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2833 OF 2014

¶6

Satish Babaso Desai

¶7

Versus

¶8

Circle Officer, Circle Office, Kabnoor & Ors... Respondents

¶9

Mr. Akshay Prakash Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V. P. Malvankar, AGP for R. Nos. 1 to 3

¶10

CORAM:-A. S. OKA & A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATED : -18/06/2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶13

the learned AGP for the respondents. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the petition, the same is forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶14

2 The petitioner is relying upon the sale deed dated 1/4/2013 under which he purchased the land more particularly described in clause (1) of the said sale deed. There is a recital in the sale deed that by order dated 12^th of August 1984, non-agricultural use for commercial purposes of the said land has been permitted by

1/4

WP2833.14

the Collector of the District. An application was made u/s 149 read with Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“For short “the said Code”) by the petitioner, for effecting necessary mutation entry on the basis of the sale deed. By the impugned communication dated 12th August, 2013 issued by the Tahsildar, the petitioner was informed that the permissible use of land in question of dairy and poultry. The letter records that the user of the land will have to be changed from non-agriculture to residential use and only after the change of user is effected, a mutation entry in 7/12 extract will be made.

¶19

3 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent.

¶20

4 Under section 149 of the said Code, any person acquiring any land by purchase is under an obligation to report orally or in writing the acquisition of rights to Talathi within a period of three months from the date of such acquisition. Subsection (1) of Section 150 of the said Code enjoins the Talathi to enter in the register of mutations every report made to him under Section 149. After complying with the sub-section (1) of Section

2/4

WP2833.14

150, further procedure as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 150 is required to be followed. In view of the said express statutory provisions, the impugned communication dated 12^th August, 2013 is completely illegal and the same will have to be quashed and set aside with a direction to the concerned authorities to take action in accordance with Section 150 of the said Code.

¶25

5 Hence, we pass the following order:

¶26

(a) The impugned communication (Exhibit “C”) is

¶27

quashed and set aside;

¶28

(b) We direct that appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with sub-Section (1) of Section 150 of the said Code by making an entry in register of mutations within a period of eight weeks from today;

¶29

(c) After such entry is made as aforesaid, further steps as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 150 of the said code shall be taken;

¶30

(d) It is obvious that all authorities under the said Code will have to follow the law laid down by this Court in its decision in

¶31

the case of Shrikant R. Sankanwar & Ors. v. Krishna Balu

3/4

WP2833.14

Naukudkar, 2003 (2) Mh. L. J. 276 ;

¶36

(e) Petition is disposed of in the above directions.

¶37

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶38

md.saleem

¶39

4/4

Shri. Satish Babaso Desai v. Circle Officer, Circle Office, Kabnoor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Satish Babaso Desai v. Circle Officer, Circle Office, Kabnoor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Gopal Tendolkar Vs 1. Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Ibrahim Fakirsaheb Nalband and Ors.

Smt. Rukminibai Laxmipati Dasari Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Appasaheb Akapa Khotale and Ors. Vs Shri. Prabhakar Kallu Khot and Ors.

Arya Agrotech Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Bank of India, through Bank Branch Manager and Anr.

Sharad Narayan Ghante Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribunal Development Department and Ors.