Partly allowed

Rajesh Balmukund Mandhani and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Oct 2021WP/4060/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the order of the City Survey Officer refusing mutation entries based on registered sale deeds due to a perceived pending appeal. The Court quashed the order, directing the officer to array original owners, issue notices, provide a hearing, and decide on merits within six months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders refusing mutation entries were quashed. The respondent was directed to issue notices, grant a hearing, and conclude proceedings within six months on the merits.

Rajesh Balmukund Mandhani and Others Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

913-wp-4060-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

913 WRIT PETITION NO.4060 OF 2020

¶4

RAJESH BALMUKUND MANDHANI AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Nagargoje Ankush N. AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. A.R. Vaidya

¶6

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

¶7

DATED : 01^st OCTOBER, 2021

¶8

PER COURT:-

¶9

We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri Vaidya, learned advocate on behalf of respondent no.4.

¶10

We have perused the impugned orders passed by the City Survey Ofcer – respondent no.3 and the reasons which appear in the property register that no action is being taken by the City Survey Ofcer since First Appeal No.1161 of 2014, which would afect the property at issue, is pending before the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad.

¶11

The learned advocate for the petitioners submits on specific instructions, that this first appeal has been withdrawn and disposed of on 06.03.2019 and, therefore, there is no impediment for the said authority to consider the request of the petitioners for carrying out mutation entries which are based on registered sale deeds.

¶12

1/2

¶13

913-wp-4060-2020.odt

¶14

In view of the above, it appears that respondent no.3 has declined to entertain the request of the petitioners under the belief that First Appeal No.1161 of 2014 is still pending when the same is disposed of as per the statement of the petitioners.

¶15

As such, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶16

(a) The impugned orders as set out in prayer clause (B), are quashed and set aside.

¶17

(b) The petitioners shall array the original owners from whom they have purchased the lands with reference to which the mutation entries are to be carried out, before respondent no.3 in the said proceedings.

¶18

(c) Respondent no.3 shall issue notices to all the parties who are likely to be afected by the said proceedings and after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all, shall pass a reasoned order on the applications filed by the petitioners, on their own merits, without being infuenced by any observation in our order.

¶19

(d) We expect the proceedings to be concluded within six months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶20

(S.G. MEHARE. J.)

¶21

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶22

Mujaheed//

¶23

2/2

Rajesh Balmukund Mandhani and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Balmukund Mandhani and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Dnyaneshwar Trust through Its Manager Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Trust through Its Manager Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Trust through Its Manager Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manohar Ahilaji Kole and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gaurish Yogesh Dabhade Minor Thr His Guardian Manasi Yogesh Dabhade Vs Union of India Thr Its Secretary and Others

M/S Maso Automotive Pvt. Ltd. through Manager Vs the Union of India and Others