Dismissed

Smt.Alka Babanrao Shilimkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Ld.Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2019WP/6947/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a second appeal and connected writ petition, dismissed the appellant's challenge regarding deletion of names from revenue records. The court upheld the appellate view denying injunctions due to error correction under Order II Rule 2 CPC and lack of civil court jurisdiction over revenue actions. It also dismissed the writ petition but directed consideration of a fresh representat

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The writ petition is dismissed. The appeal is entertained if a representation is made within four weeks of the judgment as per the communication date

Smt.Alka Babanrao Shilimkar and Anr. Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

sa 187-15.doc

¶2

DDR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2015

¶5

Venubai Vishwanath Gole..Appellant

¶6

vs.

¶7

Government of Maharashtra & ors...Respondents

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6947 OF 2018

¶9

Alka Babanrao Shilimkar & anr...Petitioners

¶10

vs.

¶11

State of Maharashtra & ors...Respondents

¶12

Shri A.B. Tajane for appellant.

¶13

Ms. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in SA.
Shri S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in WP.

¶14

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶15

 DATE : 9th OCTOBER, 2019

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶18

2.The appellant in this Appeal challenges the judgment

¶19

and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the
Appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant is the original
plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner and in possession

¶20

1/5

¶21

sa 187-15.doc

¶22

of the various suit properties mentioned in the cause title. It is
plaintiff’s case that the names of the forefathers of the plaintiff
were found in the revenue record of the property till 1954-1955.
However, the Government has wrongly prepared the mutation
entry No.1149 and thereby deleted the names of forefathers of
the plaintiff illegally. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year
1982 the Government officers have changed the entries in the
7/12 extracts of the suit property in view of the provisions of the
Bombay Prevention of the Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” for
short). Thereafter, against these revenue entries various
proceedings were filed before the revenue authorities. The
plaintiff however did not succeed. The plaintiff also filed a
regular Civil Suit No. 242/1983 for perpetual injunction. The
said suit came to be dismissed.

¶23

3.It is observed by the Appellate Court that by filing
civil suit No. 242 of 1983, the plaintiff has prayed for mandatory
perpetual injunction and damages. The First Appellate Court

¶24

2/5

¶25

sa 187-15.doc

¶26

was of the view that in terms of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is now not entitled to seek these
reliefs which plaintiff omitted while filing the earlier suit.

¶27

4.I see no reason to interfere with this view of the
Appellate Court. Concurrent findings of fact are recorded by the
Courts below and against the plaintiff. Moreover, the Appellate
Court has observed that as per Section 158 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966 it is for the revenue officers to
maintain the revenue record of the lands in Maharashtra and
that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to direct by way
mandatory injunction to the State – defendant not to record
names of any one in the revenue record of the suit property.

¶28

5.However, my attention is invited by learned counsel
for the appellant to two documents dated 16th July 2011
addressed by the Tahsildar to the Superintendent Land Records,
Pune and document dated 12th July, 2010 addressed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer Bhor and Pune to the Collector, Pune. Learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that these documents

¶29

3/5

¶30

sa 187-15.doc

¶31

were produced before the Appellate Court but the Appellate
Court has failed to take into consideration these documents
while deciding the Appeal.

¶32

6.Against the order deleting the names from the
revenue records, the appellant had also filed a representation
before the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue in the year 2016. The
said representation is rejected by the Hon’ble Minister on
8/3/2018. The order passed by the Hon’ble Minister will reveal
that these two documents have not been considered by the
Hon’ble Minister while rejecting the representation. The order
passed by the Hon’ble Minister on 8/3/2018 is subject matter of
challenge in Writ Petition No. 6947 of 2018.

¶33

7.Be that as it may, the communication dated 12th July
2010 addressed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhor to the
Collector, Pune more particularly the last paragraph therein
reveals that there are some mistakes in the matter of
consolidation and in this respect the appellant can make
representation to the Superintendent of Land Records, Pune

¶34

4/5

¶35

sa 187-15.doc

¶36

(Consolidation). In this view of the matter, learned counsel for
the appellant would submit that as per the own showing of the
respondent, as there are some mistakes in the consolidation, the
issue will have to be looked into by the Superintendent of Land
Records, Pune (Consolidation). He states that he will file a fresh
representation to the consolidation officer in terms of the
communication dated 12/7/2010. If such a representation is
made within a period of 4 weeks from today, the representation
be considered in accordance with law.

¶37

8.In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the
Courts below, the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Even the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is however made clear that
if a representation is made in term of the communication dated
12/7/2010 within 4 weeks from today, the same be considered
in accordance with law.

¶38

9.The Civil Application is disposed of.

¶39

Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Date: Rane 2019.10.10 17:30:07 +0530

¶40

5/5

Smt.Alka Babanrao Shilimkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Ld.Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Alka Babanrao Shilimkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Ld.Secretary 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

Shabir Imam Kalot and Ors. Vs Bashir Usman Raut and Ors.

Chidanand Gurulingappa Partbadi Vs State of Maharashtra (through)

Chidanand Gurulingappa Partbadi Vs State of Maharashtra (through)

Mahiboob Ibrahim Mulla Vs Smt. Jahirabai Ibrahim Mulla

Shri. Bapu Krishna Dalvi Vs Shri. Sampat @ Dilip Yashwant Kamble

Dnyanu Genu Narayan Khule and Ors. Vs Ramkrishna Shivram Khule and Ors.