AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr.Manan A.Shah, learned Counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5, Mr.Sunil C.Patel, learned Counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 6 and Mr.Jaswant K.Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and finally disposed of today.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 6.7.2007 passed by the Mamlatdar (respondent No. 7) in R.T.S. Case Nos. 21, 23, 24, 25, and 26 of 2005 whereby Entry Nos. 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818 and 1820 in respect of land bearing Block Nos. 133, 171, 125/2, 125/1 and 132 of Village Jahangirabad have been cancelled.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners have purchased lands bearing Blocks Nos. 133, 171, 125/2, 125/1 and 132 of village Jahangirabad in T.P.Scheme Nos. 44, 49, 20, 30, and 39A vide registered Sale Deeds dated 4.10.2005 and 28.10.2005. Consequent upon this, Entries Nos. 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818 and 1820 came to be entered in the revenue records on 28.10.2005. The copies of the registered Sale Deeds are annexed collectively as Annexure-D to the petition and the copies of the mutation entries entered in the revenue record, pursuant to the above-mentioned Sale Deeds are annexed as Annexure-E to the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they had filed an application before the respondent No. 7 (Mamlatdar) for making the revenue entries regarding the said purchase of lands by the petitioners. However, the respondents filed their objections and the dispute was entered into the Register of disputed cases under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and cases were registered as R.T.S. Case Nos. 21, 23, 24, 25, and 25, of 2005. According to the averments made in the petition, these cases have been decided by the respondent No. 7 by an order dated 6.7.2007 on a wrong and erroneous interpretation of the order of status-quo passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1824 of 2007, by directing that the said revenue entries be cancelled, necessitating the filing of the present petition.
Mr.S.H.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Dilip Kanojia, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 7 (Mamlatdar) suffers from total non-application of mind, inasmuch as the said respondent has totally misinterpreted the order of status-quo passed by this Court on 19.1.2007 in Special Civil Application No. 1824 of 2007, which petition has been filed challenging the consent decrees and has nothing to do with the revenue proceedings. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the order dated 19.1.2007 of this Court has directed status-quo as of 19.1.2007 to be maintained regarding the possession and title of the property in question since the mutation entries in favour of the petitioners, pursuant to the registered Sale-Deeds vide which the lands in question have been purchased by the petitioners, were recorded on 28.10.2005, i.e. before the passing of the order dated 19.1.2007, and since the possession of the property is with the petitioners and by virtue of the registered Sale-Deeds, the petitioners have also obtained good title for consideration of the property in question, the Mamlatdar could not have twisted and misinterpreted the order of this Court to mean that it contained a direction to cancel the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners.
The learned Senior Advocate has emphasized that the impugned order dated 7.7.2002 of the respondent No. 7 (Mamlatdar) is totally wrong and illegal and the directions contained therein, to cancel the mutation entries in favour of the petitioners, fly in the face of the status-quo order passed by this Court and in this view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the averments made in the petition as well as the documents on record.
The order dated 19.1.2007 (Coram: K.M. Mehta, J.) passed in Special Civil Application No. 1824 of 2007 reads as under:
Heard Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
Notice returnable on 19.2.2007. Status-quo as on today shall be maintained by the parties regarding possession and title of the property in question. Learned advocate for the petitioner is requested to prepare a fresh list of dates and events. Learned advocate for the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by RPAD.
A perusal of the same makes it clear that this Court has categorically directed that the status-quo as on 19.1.2007 shall be maintained regarding possession and title of the property in question. A perusal of the impugned order dated 6.7.2007 rendered by the respondent No. 7 makes it clear that in the operative portion thereof, while referring to the order of this Court dated 19.1.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1824 of 2007 and the direction to maintain status-quo, the respondent No. 7 has gone beyond the said order, by concluding that in view of the said status-quo order, the mutation entries pursuant to the sale of the land in question by the registered Sale-Deeds, should be cancelled. This direction is clearly a misinterpretation of the order of status-quo of this Court passed on 19.1.2007, which does not contain any direction to cancel the said mutation entries which were in existence on the relevant date i.e. 19.1.2007.
The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed on this ground alone. The writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed, and the order dated 6.7.2007 rendered by the respondent No. 7, whereby the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the registered Sale-Deeds, qua the lands in question have been cancelled, is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 7 will maintain the position regarding the mutation entries in question as it existed on the date of the passing of the order of status-quo by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1824 of 2007, that is, on 19.1.2007. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar (respondent No. 7) may pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties.
It is made clear that this Court has confined itself to the question of the legality and validity of the order dated 6.7.2007 of the respondent No. 7, insofar as it has misinterpreted the direction of status-quo contained in order dated 19.1.2007 rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1824 of 2007. No other aspect of the matter, on merits, has been gone into. It is open for the respective parties to raise all just and legal contentions, which may be available to them before the appropriate forum.
Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs.