Petitioner challenged Revenue Authorities order allowing mutation entry based on alleged void sale deed by Trustee. Court held mutation does not adjudicate title; Civil Court has exclusive jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
59-wp-2794-2024.doc
Nikita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2794 OF 2024
NIKITA KAILAS DARADE
Digitally signed by NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.03.20 10:13:55 +0530
Shridhar Yashwant Karande since
Deceased Through LRS… Petitioner
V/s.
Dnyandev Vishwanath Dolari Since
deceased and Ors.… Respondents
Mr. I. M. Khairdi for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for the State.
Mr. R. M. Haridas i/b Mr. Somnath Thengal for the
Respondent.
CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED:MARCH 19, 2024
P.C.:
1.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is challenging judgment and order passed by
Minister for Revenue allowing revision application filed by
Respondent No.1.
2.According to the petitioner, the Respondent No.1 by
registered sale deed purchased property owned by a Trust
registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act,
1950 and the trustee who executed the sale deed in favour of
respondent No.1 had no authority to execute sale deed in relation
1
59-wp-2794-2024.doc
to Trust property. According to the petitioner, therefore, the sale
deed was void in nature. Based on such sale deed no right title
interest is conferred on respondent No.1 and hence, the Revenue
Authorities could not have entered the name of respondent No.1
by holding inquiry under Section 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966.
3.The scope of power of Revenue Authorities in exercise of
power under Section 149 and 150 of the Land Revenue Code,
1966 has been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors. Vs. Krishna Balu
Naukudkar reported in (2003) (2) Mh. L.J. 276. The single
Judge of this Court has held that the inquiry contemplated under
Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in
relation to application of mutation entry is to ascertain whether
the document produced reveals acquisition of right stated
provision acquired in the land in respect of which the mutation
entry is applied and it does not empowered the authorities to
adjudicate upon title and rights of the parties to the immovable
parties.
4.It is also well settled that void sale deed confers no rights on
the transferre and it is not necessary to get to seek declaration of
sale deed being void (See. Prem Singh Vs. Birbal 2006 5 SCC 353).
5.It is undisputed fact that the application under Section 149
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was filed by
respondent No.1 based on registered sale deed. In relation to
immovable property which was the subject matter of mutation
2
59-wp-2794-2024.doc
entry, the Circle Officer under the Maharashtra Revenue Code,
1966 had no power to investigate into right, title and interest of
transfer, therefore, entry of respondent No.1 once made in relation
to property in dispute cannot be faulted. However, it needs to be
clarified that mutation neither creates nor extinguishes substantive
rights of parties over the immovable property.
6. Therefore, such adjudication is always subject to the rights of parties being adjudicated by the competent Civil Court who has exclusive power to adjudicate title between the parties.
7. Hence, there is no legal infirmity in the order.
8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mutation entry under Section 149 and 150 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 can be faulted if based on a void sale deed without adjudication of title by Civil Court
Whether the absence of authority of the trustee to execute sale deed renders the mutation order defective
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors. Vs. Krishna Balu NaukudkarExplained¶19
Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors. Vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar (2003) (2) Mh. L.J. 276 · Who else cites this
Prem Singh Vs. BirbalExplained¶20
Prem Singh Vs. Birbal 2006 5 SCC 353 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nikita Kailas Darade
Dnyandev Vishwanath Dolari Ors.
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court