Disposed

Mrs. Faridabano W/O. Haji Mohammad Shafi Punjani and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC2 Mar 2021WP/779/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order halting registration of a sale deed, the court held that internal communications lacking formal directions do not impede legal proceedings. The bench deleted ambiguous inhibitory language from the subject communication, allowing the registrar to proceed under applicable rules.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication's inhibitory language was treated as deleted; the sub-registrar is directed to proceed as per applicable rules without further clarification.

Mrs. Faridabano W/O. Haji Mohammad… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 3 952-WP 779.21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2021

¶4

Mrs. Faridabano w/o Haji Mohammad Shafi Punjani and others -- Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra and others --Respondents

¶5

Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for Petitioners. Ms. K. S. Joshi, I/c. G. P. for Respondent No.1 to 4. Mr. C. R. Sharma, Advocate for intervenor.

¶6

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 02 MARCH 2021

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 389 OF 2021

¶10

As per the intervention application is concerned, the applicant claims to be a social worker with no personal interest in the matter, no particulars what social work the applicant has done is mentioned except stating that he has made complaint in respect of construction of the original Petitioner. On the face of it this applicant does not have any locus and we are not convinced of the bonafides of the applicant.

¶11

The application is rejected.

¶12

KOLHE

¶13

2 / 3 952-WP 779.21

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2021

¶15

The Petitioner has challenged a communication dated 22 January 2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer Karanja to the Sub Registrar (Grade-1) Karanja. According to the Petitioner by this impugned communication Sub Divisional, Officer has instructed the Sub Registrar not to register a Sale Deed in respect of construction upon Survey No.14.

¶16

We have perused the impugned communication. It refers to Rule 44(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 and states that since the construction is unauthorized, the Sale Deed should not be registered.

¶17

When the respondents were called upon to demonstrate as to how such communication can be issued, replies have been filed by both Respondent No.3 and 4. The Respondent No.3 has stated that there is no direction issued by him to Respondent No.4 and he has only brought certain facts to the notice of Respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has filed reply stating that decision not to register the Sale Deed is not yet taken and what is impugned is only internal communication. These explanations are coming forth after the Court has issued notice on 08 February 2021.

¶18

Now it has been sought to be explained by Respondent No.3 that there is no direction to Respondent No.4. However, the

¶19

KOLHE

¶20

impugned communication in penultimate paragraph does state that the registration should be prohibited. Therefore, we take it as per the stand now placed on affidavit that these directions stand deleted and there is no impediment in the way of the Respondent No.4 to proceed as per law. The respondent No.4 will have to proceed as per the Rules applicable and it is not necessary for us to issue any further clarification.

¶21

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶22

KOLHE

Mrs. Faridabano W/O. Haji Mohammad Shafi Punjani and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Faridabano W/O. Haji Mohammad Shafi Punjani and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai 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

Pravin S/O Eknath Ghode Vs State Election Commission, Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Sadhana Wd/O Narendra Rangari Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Department, Mumbai and Others

Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-Operation, New Delhi and 2 Ot Vs Smt. Snehal Vijay Wanaskar W/O Shri Vijay Wanaskar

Dilip S/O Hiralala Tiwari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretry Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Darasing Ramji Tagare Vs Shri Vinayak Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Vikas Sanstha, through Secretary/President and Others

Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati Thr. Secretary, Amravati and Another Vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Thr. Registrar, Nashik