AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a direction to quash and set aside the Order dated 5th September, 2024 passed by Respondent No.1 (impugned Order). Additionally, they also seek a direction to Respondent No.1 to dispose of the pending Revision Application within a period of three months, having regard to Section 255(4) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘Land Revenue Code’).
The Petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960, bearing Registration No.BOM/HSG/4832 of 1976 dated 5th May 1976. The Petitioner – Society consist of 289 members residing in five buildings of four storeys each. The Respondent No.1, in exercise of its powers under Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code, passed an ex-parte Order dated 5th September, 2024 without following due process of law and principle of natural justice and stayed the proceedings before Respondent No.19 being Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).
Brief Facts :
Govind and Laxman (since deceased) were owners of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 61/12 admeasuring 834.60 sq. meters corresponding to CTS No.1320 and Survey No.61/14 admeasuring 126.60 sq. meters corresponding to CTS No.1334 (‘the writ property’).
In 1973, Govind and Laxman had approached the original promoters being (i) Vasantrao Narayan Verlekar. (ii) Shubhada Suresh Borkar and (iii) Nirmala Vasant Desai, for the sale of the writ property and entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 11th May, 1973. The original owners obtained an Order dated 1st March, 1979 under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 for sale of the agricultural lands in favour of the Society. They also obtained an Order dated 13th February 1978, under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (‘ULC Act’) exempting the writ property from the Application of Section III of the ULC Act. A covering letter dated 21st August, 1978 was also obtained by the original owners. After completing all compliances, namely, publishing an advertisement dated 19th January, 1979 and publication of notice in Marathi newspaper inviting objections and claims in respect of the sale of the writ property, the original owners, Govind and Laxman sold, transferred, conveyed their rights, title and interest in the writ property in favour of the Petitioner – Society by virtue of Sale Deed dated 12th April 1979, registered with Sub-Registrar of Assurances as document No. Bom/S/1068/1979 (‘the Sale Deed’).
In addition to the Application made by the Petitioner -Society, the original owners, Govind and Laxman, addressed letters to the City Survey Office, Mumbai, for mutating the name of the Society in the revenue records. The Petitioner - Society applied to the Competent Authority for obtaining non-agricultural permission which was granted by an Order dated 27th July, 1979 by the learned Additional Deputy Collector in favour of the Petitioner – Society.
After receiving all permissions from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘MCGM’), the Petitioner – Society constructed five buildings of four storeys each, comprising of 15 wings occupied by 289 flats/tenements owners. The Society received a full Occupation Certificate for all the buildings on the property on 8th April, 1981. Since then, it has been paying non-agricultural taxes, property taxes, water taxes etc. to the concerned Authorities.
In May 2017, the Society initiated the process of redevelopment, so as to avoid recurring alterations/ modifications to the old buildings, and in the interest and for safety of all the members. In order to obtain an updated revenue record as well as title related records, the Society applied to the Revenue Department in 2018. On receiving the record, the Petitioner was shocked and surprised to find that the names of the legal heirs of Govind had been mutated on the 7/12 extract of the writ property. The relevant mutation entry bearing No.6910 dated 21st September 1990, was procured through an Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner – Society then challenged the mutation entry No.6910 dated 21st September 1990, before the SDO, by an Application bearing No.19 of 2019, together with an Application for condonation of delay, in February 2019. By Order dated 27th July 2023, the SDO condoned the delay and proceeded to hear of the matter. Laxman, one of the sellers and a party to the Sale Deed, was also made a party to the proceeding before the SDO. Neither Laxman, nor the legal heirs of Govind denied the execution of the Sale Deed and transfer of the writ property in favor of the Petitioner – Society. The matter was listed before the SDO on various occasions for the contesting Respondents to file their reply, and on each occasion they sought time to file their say.
The Petitioner – Society received a notice dated 19th September, 2024 from the Office of Respondent No. 1 informing it that a hearing was scheduled on 30th September, 2024. It is pertinent to note that the said notice did not contain any particulars of the impugned Order. Thereafter, the Petitioner – Society received a second notice dated 26th September 2024, informing it that the hearing of 30th September, 2024 stood cancelled and had been rescheduled for 8th October 2024. It is pertinent to note that even the second notice was silent regarding the impugned Order.
On 2nd January 2025, for the first time, the Advocate for the contesting Respondents disclosed to the Petitioner about the ex parte Order dated 5th September, 2024 passed in their favour. As the impugned Order had not been placed before the learned SDO, he adjourned the matter to 10th January 2025, and directed the Advocate to submit a copy of it. The impugned Order was neither served on the SDO nor the Petitioner – Society and therefore, the Petitioner – Society addressed a letter through its Advocate requesting for a copy thereof along with a copy of the Revision Application.
On 14th January 2025, the contesting Respondents served a copy of the impugned Order along with the Revision Application/Appeal No.2624/3353/Pr.Kr. 54/J-3 of 2024. Despite an Application made immediately to the Office of Respondent No.1 i.e. on 20th January 2025, for a certified copy of the Roznama and the impugned Order, the same was received by the Petitioner - Society only after a period of 4 months i.e. on 9th April 2025. A perusal of the Roznama indicates that one, Kalpesh Sharad Patil had orally argued the matter on 20th August, 2024 and the matter was reserved for orders. The Roznama dated 20th August, 2024 revealed that the Revision Application was filed by Advocate one Narottam Thakur, but oral arguments were advanced by the one of the parties in person. The Roznama, however, does not record the absence of other parties to the proceedings, most importantly, the Petitioner – Society. A perusal of the Revision Application and the impugned Order indicates that the contesting Respondents had failed to make out any substantial justification for approaching the Respondent No.1 in revision against the SDO Order after a delay of one year. Neither the Revision Application nor the impugned Order demonstrates any urgency or reason for granting an ex-parte stay for an indefinite duration on proceedings before the SDO. It is in these circumstances, the Petitioner was compelled to file the Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court.
Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, narrated the afore-stated facts and submitted that the Petition be made absolute with appropriate directions.
Mr. Prasad Apte, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 18, relied upon the Affidavit-in-reply dated 19th December, 2025 to oppose the Writ Petition. The learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 19 relied upon the Affidavit of Mr. Prasad Dhage, Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai dated 28th January, 2026 and submitted to the Orders of the Court.
I have heard the learned Advocates and perused all papers on record.
After hearing the parties at length and after deliberations in the Court with the respective Advocates, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 18 acceded to the setting aside of the impugned Order by consent. The Respondent No.19 was directed to complete the hearing within a period of one week from the date of this Court's Order i.e. 30th June, 2026. The above Petition accordingly stands disposed of to that extent, and the immediate concerns of the Petitioner have been redressed.
However, it is rather disturbing to note that the Petitioner – Society had to initiate several proceedings before various authorities, including this Court, over a period of more than nine years in order to undertake a lawful redevelopment. This difficulty arose only because the concerned authorities did not mutate the name of the Petitioner-Society in their records, although the Petitioner-Society had applied immediately after the registration of the Sale Deed, as far back as in 1979. The fault lies entirely with the concerned Authorities whose lapse has dragged the Petitioner – Society into litigation.
In my view, this litigation could easily have been avoided. It was occasioned only by the failure of the concerned Authorities to discharge their bounden duty to record the name of the Petitioner in the Revenue Records, for over a decade after the transfer of the writ property by a registered Sale Deed. This lapse on the part of the concerned Authorities is wholly unjustifiable and unpardonable. It has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner – Society and delayed the redevelopment process by over seven years, for absolutely no fault on their part.
In my view, only the concerned Authorities and its Officers are to be blamed for the considerable loss, injury and prejudice caused to the Petitioner – Society, which comprises of around 289 members and their families.
Thus, a simplicitor disposal of the present Petition would not be justified merely because the Respondent Nos.2 to 18 have consented to set aside the impugned Order of Respondent No.1. According to me, it leaves an important question unanswered, namely, what is the process by which entries are to be made in all the relevant records, of all concerned Authorities, after a transfer of property between parties by a duly registered instrument.
This Court has noted a series of such Petitions, filed because the process of mutation is being abused by several unscrupulous legal heirs of land-owners. Usually these are properties on which the slums have cropped up and are due for redevelopment. It is observed that although the original landowners would have received the entire consideration on sale of their property, their legal heirs venture into this exercise, which ex facie amount to an elite form of extortion. These unscrupulous legal heirs have their names mutated in the 7/12 extracts because their predecessors’ names have not been substituted by the names of those who purchased the property by a registered Sale Deed in these records. This is the core point of mischief. The concerned Authorities who receive the Applications from such legal heirs fail in their duty, the motive behind such conduct is not difficult to discern to verify from the registering authorities whether the said property has been sold. Because once a property has been sold, it becomes a matter of record and such registration can be set aside only by seeking its cancellation, through appropriate proceedings against the Claimants of the title to the said property. It is settled law that such an adjudication is impermissible by any of the concerned Authorities maintaining the records. In my view, both the Registration Authority and the Revenue Authorities viz. the Tahsildars and Talathis are responsible for such litigation and chaos.
At the Court’s request, the SDO, Mumbai Western Suburb has filed an affidavit dated 28th January 2026, elaborately setting out the procedure presently adopted in the Department. The said Affidavit sets out the automated and integrated digital system now in place following the amendment to the Land Revenue Code in 2014, particularly of Sections 149, 150 and 154. The relevant paragraphs Nos.3 to 4 of Affidavit are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“3)The prevailing practice involves an integrated digital process where registration of a document automatically triggers a mutation process, minimizing the need for manual applications by the buyer.
1. The Automated/Online Process (e-Mutation)
The current, standard procedure is largely driven by the e-Mutation/e-Ferfar system.
•Automatic Notification: When a document is registered at the Sub-Registrar's office, the data is digitally sent to the Tahsildar and Talathi (village officer).
•No Application Required: Under the 2014 amendment (Section 150), for registered documents, the new owner does not necessarily need to file a separate mutation application (Form 6) to the Talathi, as the Sub-Registrar sends the memorandum automatically.
•Online Application (Alternative): If the automation does not initiate, owners can apply online via the Aaple Sarkar website or MahaBhulekh portal, uploading the registered document, Index II, and ID proof.
2. The Step-by-Step Procedure
1.Registration: The buyer registers the sale/gift deed and receives Index II.
2.Information Transfer: The Sub-Registrar sends the registered data to the Talathi.
3.Preliminary Entry (Ferfar): The Talathi makes an entry (Mutation Entry) in the Ferfar Register (mutation register).
4.Public Notice: A public notice is published, usually in the village Chavadi (village office) or sent via SMS/email, informing interested parties.
5.Objection Period: A 30-day notice period is provided for any objections.
6.Certification: If no objections are raised, the Circle Inspector/Talathi certifies the mutation entry, officially updating the 7/12 extract.
4) Standard Operations Procedure (SOP) for Mutation Entry
1. Mutation Entry
Step-I: Talathi logs in with Login name and password using registered digital signature.
Step-2: After successful login, Talathi makes a mutation entry as per required mutation request.
Step-3 : after the Preview of 7/12 for mutation effects is shown to Talathi who confirms for desired effects.
Step-4: If desired effects are proper, the mutation is saved in the system.
Step-5: If desired effects are not proper, then the Talati is allowed to make necessary changes and the process is repeated till the desired effects are seen properly.
Step-6 : Next, Mutation Register Extract is generated by Talathi and the mutation data is digitally signed and also the Mutation Register PDF is digitally signed
Step-7 : Notice-IX is generated by Talati and served to all concerned parties and one copy on which signature of parties to whom notice is served is to be kept as part of office file
Step-8 : After mandatory period of 15 days (counted with respect to the party to whom notice is served last), Objection remark is explicitly entered by Talathi
Step-9 : If objection is received, then Talati gives such remark as “Received Objection” and the mutation is not available to the circle officer for certification till that time as objection is pending
Step-10: If objection is not received, then Talati gives such remark as "Objection not received" and the mutation is available to the circle officer for certification.”
In my view, in the aforestated automated system where the notifications are sent to each of the Departments viz. the Talathis and Tahsildars, such a notification must also be sent to the concerned parties. Further, notifications should be sent within stipulated time to enable parties to notify the Sub-Registrar about any error in its initiation, who in turn, may rectify the error at his end and if not done for any reason, notify the parties to adopt the next step as contemplated. Notably, even this automated and integrated digital system, presently in force in the State of Maharashtra, contemplates a process for calling for and deciding objections. The statements contained in this Affidavit are accepted.
Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Meena Rizvi v State of Maharashtra1 in addition to the principles set out therein, it would be necessary to set out herein certain principles to be kept in mind by the concerned Authorities / Revenue Officers for dealing with or deciding the Applications raising objections:
a. A ‘mutation entry’ does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of any person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is made only for the fiscal purpose.
b. The objections to be entertained and dealt with relate to the entries proposed to be made and not to the rights of the parties in or to the immovable properties. Therefore, the summary enquiry contemplated is confined to ascertain whether documents produced before such authorities apparently disclose acquisition of right in favour of the applicant, in the manner and of the nature claimed, and not whether the applicant is in fact entitled to claim such right in or to the property. The revenue authorities are not empowered to adjudicate upon the title and rights of the parties to the immovable proprieties.
c. A presumption operates in favour of a mutation sought on the basis of registered instrument. Unless the objector has challenged the registered instrument and obtained injunctive or interim orders in that regard, the objector cannot oppose mutation based on it.
d. By way of illustration, the revenue authorities may relegate parties to civil proceedings (these being exceptions), in the following cases:
i.where mutation is sought on the basis of a Will and the Will itself is disputed or unproved, revenue authorities are duty-bound to refuse mutation and direct the claimant to first establish rights before a competent civil Court;
ii.where there are two competing registered documents [in which case, the person who discloses better title than the other and who is in possession, will have an edge over the other]; and
iii.where there is a mis-match in the sequencing or flow of entries in the revenue record.
Mutation entries may also be inserted in red pencil or in red colour in electronic form to depict on-going disputes and competing claims, so that the public at large are also put to notice of them.
Further, dedicated helplines and/or complaint centers be put in place to address complaints of or against Revenue Officers who refuse to perform their duties and to make the requisite mutation entries. However, there must be a timeline stipulated after which only such complaints would be entertained.
In my view, after receiving an Application for change of mutation entry from the legal heirs of a deceased, the Tehsildar and/ or Talathi, whoever is the concerned Authority for affecting the mutation entry, must necessarily follow the procedure set out hereunder:
A death certificate of the deceased must be obtained, together with a Will, Probate, Letters of Administration, a No Objection from the other legal heirs and representative, and an Affidavit-cum-undertaking from the concerned Applicant as to the existence of legal heirs and representatives of the deceased;
Proof of payment of property taxes, water bills, electricity bills and/ or any other payments made to any of the authorities for a period of at least previous three years thereby enabling the Revenue Authorities to verify the details of erstwhile owners;
A letter from the Sub Registrar’s office confirming that no document has been registered for the sale or purchase of the property in question;
A site visit to the property, duly recorded in a report along with photographs stamped with day, date and time of the visit;
To confirm the site visit and the authenticity of report, the report should also contain a statement of persons present on the property on the date of inspection, and, if anyone who claims title through a legal document is found on the property, a notice should be duly served on them to raise objections, if any, to the proposed mutation entries;
Apart from the bank statements evincing payments or receipts from the assessment department, a written confirmation must be obtained from the Revenue and Assessment Department, Building Department, Water Department, verifying the payments made by the Applicant who seeks a change of name in the records;
The entire procedure ought to be completed within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of the Application.
The Revenue Authorities must update the owner’s email, phone numbers and postal address in their records annually.
The State must take effective steps to make the concerned Officer or Officers in each of the Department accountable for failing to respond, within the stipulated period, to Applications made to the concerned Departments for effecting entries in favour of the Applicant.
Where an objection raised to a mutation entry, the objector should be called upon to give an undertaking to secure the Applicant for such costs as may be necessary or required to be paid, in the event the objection is found to be wrong or unsustainable. The objections, if any, must be decided within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date on which the objection is raised. The entire procedure ought to be completed within a maximum period of four months from the date of lodging of the Application.
I hereby clarify that these guidelines are issued for and are applicable not only to, the Revenue Officers, but also the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, including all those authorities contemplated under the relevant Acts as well as the State.
In my view, following this procedure would reduce litigations, if any, and warn the objecting parties of illegal acts.
Although, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 18 have consented for setting aside the impugned Order, this Court deems it fit to impose a cost of Rs.7,00,000/- upon the Respondents payable to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, for the loss, injury and prejudice to the Petitioner- Society on account of delay of over seven years for redevelopment of their property. In the event of failure on the part of the Respondents to pay the costs within the stipulated period, the Petitioner shall be entitled to recover the same under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, without prejudice to its rights to adopt any other mode of recovery permissible under law. This imposition of costs would hopefully act as deterrent for all unscrupulous litigants who wrongfully make such Applications before the Tahsildar(s) and Talathi(s) for incorporating their names in the 7/12 extracts.
The Prothonotary & Senior Master is directed to intimate this Order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Maharashtra for effective implementation throughout the State.
Let the responsible Officer of the concerned Department/Departments file an Affidavit of compliance after considering and adopting the suggestions made in this Judgment on or before 1st December, 2026.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
In view of the disposal of the Petition, Interim Application filed therein also stands disposed off.
Place the matter for compliance on 1st December, 2026.
Judgment relied
Meena Rizvi v State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 818
Footnotes
- 1.2026 SCC OnLine Bom 818