Allowed

Malan Ramprasad Gite and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Honble Minister Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2024WP/1226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a revenue minister's order directing measurement of survey numbers on the basis of purchasers' sale deeds and ownership rights. The Court held revenue authorities cannot decide title or area based on title documents and set aside the impugned order, remitting proceedings to the minister for fresh decision in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned ministerial order set aside; proceedings remanded to the minister for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Malan Ramprasad Gite and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

43-wp-1226-2024.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1226 OF 2024

¶5

Malan Ramprasad Gite and ors.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra through the Hon’ble …. Respondents Minister for Revenue and Forest Department and ors.

¶9

Mr. Chaitanya B. Nikte along with Mr.Ritvij A. Kale i/b. Mr.Prajit S. Sahane, Advocates for the Petitioners.

¶10

Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.

¶11

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 13^th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Perused petition, grounds of challenge and impugned order.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners raises objection with regard

¶17

to the observations made by the revenue minister in order dated 29^th March 2023. It is his submission that the revenue authorities are not permitted to go into the decision of title of any person in respect of the property. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 6.6 of the order which specifically states that there is a need to consider the sale deeds of the petitioners as well as other persons who have Digitally signed bySHUBHADA purchased the property from the original owner and, on the basis of the SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date:2024.09.18 sale deed, a decision will have to be taken as to the area which was 17:50:06 +0530

¶18

1/4

¶19

43-wp-1226-2024.doc

¶20

Shubhada S Kadam

¶21

purchased by each of them. It is his submission that these observations, in clause 3 of the order was passed directing measurement of lands bearing survey No.129/9B/2 and survey No.129/8/1, on the basis of the ownership rights of those persons, are contrary to law.

¶22

Learned AGP, though has sought to convince this Court by contending that even if the order is not happily worded, however, the intent of the minister was to direct the measurement of these two survey numbers in order to sort out the dispute between the parties and which cannot be called contrary to law.

¶23

There is no dispute about the position of law that the revenue authorities cannot enter into the arena of the Civil Court to decide either the title or area purchased by any person on the basis of such title documents.

¶24

Paragraph 6.6 of the order reads thus :

¶25

6-6 vtZnkj ;kauh eks-j-ua- 8268@14 P;k ekt.khckcr gjdr nk[ky dsyh gksrh- ;k gjdrhe/;s] ekst.kh le;h oknfeGdrhP;k izR;{kkr vlysY;k yxrP;k /kkjdkauk uksVhl u fnY;kus] Qsjekst.kh le;h dj.ksckcr miv/kh{kd Hkwfe vfHkys[k ;kauh R;kaP;k fn-17-12-2016 P;k vkns’kkus funsZ’khr dsys gksrs] R;kizek.ks Qsjekst.khph dk;Zokgh iw.kZ >kysyh gksrh- ek+= miv/kh{kd Hkwfe vfHkys[k ;kauh fuerk.kk ekst.khP;k vuq”kaxkus fu.kZ; ikjhr dsysyk uOgrk- ek= milapkyd Hkwfe vfHkys[k ;kauh fuerk.kk dk;kZokgh iw.kZ djrkuk eks-j-ua-8216@14 e/khy fLFkrh dk;e Bsowu fuerk.kk dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj.ksckcr fnysys vkgsrfuerk.kk ekst.kh gh miv/kh{kd Hkwfe vfHkys[k ;kauh Lor%dj.ks visf{kr vkgs- tckcnkj ;kauh oknfeGdr [ksjsnh djrkuk R;kaP;k

¶26

2/4

¶27

43-wp-1226-2024.doc

¶28

Shubhada S Kadam

¶29

feGdrhe/;s tk.;klkBh Jh-iksdGs ;kau jLRkk fnyk vlY;kps ekfnok.kh U;k;ky;kus fujh{k.k uksnfoysys vkgs- ek= izR;{kkr tkxsoj vlysyk jLrk o R;k vuq”kaxkus eks-j-ua-8216@14 e/;s ekst.kh dk;Zokgh >kyh dk ;kph iMrkG.kh gks.ks vko’;d vkgsoknfeGdr losZ ua-129@8@1 ,dq.k {ks= 0 gs 17 vkj ;k feGdrhiSdh vtZnkj ;kauh 11-10 vkj {ks= osxosxG;k uksan.khdr nLrkOnkjs [kjsnh dsysys vkgs rj tkcnkj ;kauh ;k loZs uacj iSdh f’kYyd {ks= 5-9061 vkj uksan.kh dr nLrkOnkjs [kjsnh dsysys vkgs- rlsp losZ dz-129@9c@2 ,dw.k {ks= 23 vkj vtZnkj ;kauh osxosxG;k uksan.khd`r nLrkOnkjs [ksjsnh dsysys vkgs- ;k [kjsnh nLrkaP;k vk/kkjs losZ dz-129@8@1 o losZ dz129@9c@2 e/;s izR;sdkus fdrh {ks= [kjsnh dysys vkgs ? eqG ekyd Jh-iksdGs ;kauh nLrkOnkjs tkcnkj ;kauk R;kaP;k feGdrhr tk.;klkBh jLrk fnyk gksrk dk; ? ;k jLR;kps uDdh LFkku dks.krs ;kcckr {ks=kPkk rkGesG ?ksmu iMrkG.kh dj.;kP;k fu”drkZizr eh iksgpyks vlY;kus [kkyhy izek.ks vkns’k ikfjr dj.;kr ;sr vkgsr-

¶30

vkns’k

¶31

1- fudkyi=kr ueqn dsysY;k dkj.kkLro Qsjrikl.kh vtZ va’kr% eatqj dj.;kr ;sr vkgs-

¶32

2- milapkyd Hkwfe vfHkys[k] iq.ks izns’k] ;kaps vkns’k dz-u-Hkw-1@vfiy ,l-vkj-4570@2018 fn26@11@2021 o vkns’k dz-u-Hkw-1@vfiy ,l-vkj4929@2019 fn-26@11@2021 ps vkns’k jn~n dj.;kr ;sr vkgsr-

¶33

3- mivf/k{kd Hkqfe vfHkys[k ;kauh losZ dz129@9c@2 o 129@8@1 ;k nksUgh feGdrhaph] ekydhgDdkizek.ks ekst.kh dj.;kr ;koh o R;kizek.ks izdj.kkr fu.kZ; ?;kok-

¶34

4- lnj fu.kZ; loZ lacaf/krkauk dGfo.;kr ;kok-

¶35

3/4

¶36

43-wp-1226-2024.doc

¶37

Shubhada S Kadam

¶38

The aforesaid observations made by the minister clearly indicate that it was intended by this authority to direct measurement of the property on the basis of sale deeds of each purchaser including present petitioners, which is wholly impermissible in law. Though the operative part, more particularly clause 3, appears to be innocuous as the measurement was directed of both properties, however, the said measurement is called upon to be done on the basis of ownership rights of the parties. Such direction cannot be sustained for the reason that the revenue authorities lack power to go into the issue of the ownership/title of any person against the properties in question including area claimed. As a result of this, the impugned order cannot sustain and is accordingly, setaside. The proceedings are relegated back to the minister for decision afresh in accordance with law.

¶39

The petition stands allowed in above terms.

¶40

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶41

4/4

Malan Ramprasad Gite and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Honble Minister Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malan Ramprasad Gite and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Honble Minister Revenue and Forest Dept 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through the Divisional Controller Sindhudurg Division vs Smt. Lalita Bharat Gaikwad and Ors.

Deepak Ashok Pradhan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shridhar Dharmaji Dhanajkar and Anr. vs Shalini Chandrashekhar Kamble and Anr.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs Suhasini D Naik

Mr.Subhash Baburao Muttyal vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Mumbai and Anr.

Mahesh Ganpat Sapkal vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Divisional Joint Registar Co. Op. Soceity Kolhapur Division and Ors.