Allowed

Baburao Bapurao Iylane v. the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad and Others

Bombay HC1 Nov 2017WP/1892/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Writ Petition restoring mutation in favor of the petitioner. The Court held that the revisional authority should not have interfered with the Tahsildar's order since the validity of the sale deed was pending adjudication in a civil suit and the petitioner had complied with the injunction.

What did the court decide?

Mutation entry in favor of the petitioner was restored, subject to the outcome of the regular civil suit and the injunction order.

Baburao Bapurao Iylane Vs the Additional Commissioner… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(1)

¶2

1892.16wp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1892 OF 2016

¶5

Baburao s/o Bapurao Iylane,
Age: 67 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Harangul (Bk),
Tq and Dist. Latur.

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶9

2. The Additional Collector, Latur district, Latur.

¶10

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Latur. 4. The Tahsildar, Latur. 5. Talathi Harangul (Bk) Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶11

6. Gangabai Shivaji Shinde, Age: 46, Occ: HH, R/o. Harangul, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶12

7. Sonali @ Mohini Krishna Bandgar, Age: 20years, Occ: HH, R/o. Uti, Tq. & Dist. Latur.,

¶13

8. Satish @ Santosh Shivaji Shinde, Age: 19 years, Occ: Education, R/o. Harangul, Tq. & Dist. Latur. Through his next friend Pandurang Hanmant Bandgar, Age: Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Harangul, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENTS

¶14

1892.16wp

¶15

(2)

¶16

Mr G.N. Kulkarni (Mardikar), Advocate for
petitioner;

¶17

Mr A.P. Basarkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to
5;

¶18

Mr S.V. Gundre, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 8

¶19

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
 DATE : 1st NOVEMBER, 2017

¶20

ORAL ORDER :

¶21

Vide registered sale deed dated 15th
April, 2004, the petitioner purchased the suit

¶22

property to the extent of 22 Are out of Gat No. 266
of village Harangul (Bk), Taluka and District
Latur. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, claiming to be
legal heir of deceased Shivaji, filed Regular Civil
Suit No. 811 of 2012 for declaration that the
aforesaid sale deed and possession of the present
petitioner is illegal, as such, sale deed is
executed contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The

¶23

suit is pending adjudication, in which, there
operates injunction against the present petitioner

¶24

from creating third party interest in relation to
the suit property.

¶25

1892.16wp

¶26

2.It is pursuant to this sale deed, the

¶27

petitioner approached Tahsildar, Latur for

¶28

mutation, which prayer was objected by respondent
Nos. 6,7 and 8. Overruling the said objection,
Tahsildar allowed the mutation in the name of
present petitioner vide M.E. No. 5638 vide order
dated 30th July, 2012 and subsequently upset by the

¶29

Sub Divisional Officer at the behest of the
respondents. The petitioner then preferred an
appeal before the Additional Collector, which came
to be allowed. However, the revision preferred by

¶30

the present respondents under Section 247 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 came to be

¶31

allowed. As a consequence, mutation ordered in
favour of the petitioner came to be set aside. As
such, this petition.

¶32

3.The petition is opposed by learned Counsel
for respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 on the ground that
the sale deed dated 15th April, 2004 even if
registered one, has to be termed as a mortgage

¶33

1892.16wp

¶34

(4)

¶35

transaction and in view of provisions of Section 8
of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,
the said sale deed has to be considered as void. He
would draw support from the judgment of Apex Court
in the matter of Saroj vs Sunder Singh and others
reported in 2013(15) SCC 727.

¶36

4.If the order impugned is examined in the
light of submissions made by respondent Nos. 6, 7
and 8, it is to be noted that the husband of
respondent No.6 and father of respondent No.7 and 8
namely Shivaji expired before the transaction in
question, is an admitted fact. The execution of the
sale deed is not issue under dispute, however, the
said sale deed is questioned in Regular Civil Suit
No. 811 of 2012 by respondent Nos. 7 and 8, in
which, respondent No. 6 is added as defendant No.1.
The said suit is pending adjudication qua status of
sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. It

¶37

is required to be noted that there exists
injunction order against the present petitioner,
whereby he is restrained from alienating or

¶38

(5)

¶39

creating third party interest in regard to the suit
property in question.

¶40

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in

¶41

addition, upon instructions, submits that the
present petitioner shall abide by the said order
till disposal of Regular Civil Suit No. 811 of
2012.

¶42

6.In the above referred background, the fact
remains that the order of Tahsildar, which was
confirmed by the Additional Collector ought not to
have been interfered by the revisional authority,
particularly when the issue as regards legality of
the sale deed is already subjudice before learned
Civil Court.

¶43

7.The proceedings before revenue authorities

¶44

lack originality and orders therein are always
subject to outcome of the proceedings in the civil
suit.

¶45

1892.16wp

¶46

8.In the wake of above and in view of

¶47

operation of injunction in favour of the petitioner
and having regard to the assurance given by the
petitioner, it will be appropriate, in my opinion,
to allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (C)
and is accordingly allowed.

¶48

9.It is made clear that the said mutation

¶49

entry will be subject to outcome of Regular Civil
Suit No. 811 of 2012.

¶50

 ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶51

Tupe

Baburao Bapurao Iylane v. the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao Bapurao Iylane v. the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad and Others

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

Murlidhar Bhanudas Magar Vs Dropadabai Rohidas Lahane and Others

Sayed Sadat Ali Sayed Akram Ali Vs Abeda Begum Garib Nawaz

Augustin Thomas Reddy and Others Vs Panch Committee Line Galli Beed Rajkumar Ramanna Pagote and Others

Jijabai Rama Bhuktar Vs Rama Sambhaji Khillare and Ors.

Rajkumar Manikrao Ghogre and Another Vs Indubai Bhagwat Gurme and Others

Rashidbi Latif Deshpande through Gpa Raheman Abdul Latif Deshpande Vs Paldhi Khurd Gram Panchayat Paldhi Khurd and Others