Mukund Vitthal Tasgaonkar vs The Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr.

(PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties is taken up for final hearing.

By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to transfer the Block No.6/B, Sector No.28, Ganganagar Pradhikaran, Nigdi, Pune, in the name of the Petitioner, in the records of the Municipal Corporation.

The Petitioner is occupying and is in possession of the said Block No.6/B situated at Cooper Employees CHS Ltd. The plot was allotted to the co-operative housing society by Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (‘PCNTDA’ for short) as per the Disposal of Land Regulations, 1973.

The Co-operative Housing Society constructed building upon the said plot of land. The society allotted one such block No.6/B (‘said block’ for short) in the said society to one Mr. Trimbak Vinayak Garbhe.

On 7^th October, 1984, said Trimbak Vinayak Garbhe executed an Agreement to Sale dated 7^th October, 1984, in favour of the petitioner, thereby selling the said block to the Petitioner for consideration. The entire consideration was paid by the Petitioner to his vendor. The possession was handed over to the Petitioner. The Petitioner applied to the Cooper Employees CHS Limited for membership in respect of the said block. The society initially rejected the application. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society Haveli, Pune, who allowed the appeal vide an order dated 2^nd March, 1993. The society preferred Revision Application against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar before the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Pune. That Revision Application was rejected vide Order dated 22^nd June, 1994 and the Order of the Deputy Registrar dated 2^nd March, 1993 in Appeal No. 7 of 1992 was upheld. The Society ultimately admitted the Petitioner as a member of the society in place of Mr. Trimbak Garbhe and the Share Certificate was mutated in the name of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner preferred an application before the PCNTDA to transfer the said block in his name in the record of the PCNTDA Authorities. The PCNTDA refused to transfer the block in the name. Hence, the present petition is filed.

We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

We have perused the documents on record. The Petitioner is admittedly in possession of the said block. The name of the Petitioner finds place in the records of the society. Although, initially the co-operative housing society rejected the application of the Petitioner, after long drawn battle, the said application was allowed and the Share Certificate was issued in the name of the Petitioner. The only contention of the PCNTDA is that the agreement dated 7^th October, 1984 executed in favour of the Petitioner is only an Agreement for Sale and no registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the Petitioner and therefore, the name of the Petitioner cannot be entered in the records of the Municipal Property.

An affidavit was filed by the Respondent No.2, objecting the petition of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 has also objected the application of the Petitioner. The fulcrum of the of the objection is that the document dated 7^th October, 1984 in favour of the Petitioner is an Agreement for Sale and not a registered conveyance.

The Petitioner is residing in the said Block No.6/B since 7^th October, 1984. The society issued a Share Certificate in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is not seeking any declaration of title in the present Writ Petition. All that he is saying is that his name should be mutated in the records of the Respondent – Corporation. The Petitioner’s name is already recorded on the property tax register with the Respondent- Corporation and claims to be a regular taxpayer of Respondent No. 1.

It is settled position of law that the records maintained by the Municipal Corporation are only for the fiscal purposes. Only because the name of a particular person is entered in the records of the Corporation, would not confer any title right upon the person whose name is entered in the records of the Corporation. Thus, the objection of the Respondent No.1 that the property cannot be mutated in the name of the petitioner only on the ground that the agreement in favour of the petitioner is not registered, cannot be considered to be a valid ground especially because the Petitioner is already recorded in the property tax register. At no stretch of imagination, mutating the name of the petitioner in the records of the Corporation would tantamount to transfer of the title. This being the position, the arguments of the respondent No.1 deserves to be rejected.

The Petitioner had filed the application for entering his name in the Municipal Records the first time on 30^th July, 1996 before the Respondent No.1. who had refused to accept the application of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 is directed to accept the application of the Petitioner dated 30^th July, 1996 and charge the transfer fees for mutation of Petitioner’s name in their records as per the rates prevailing at that time when the application was first time made on 30^th July, 1996. It is made clear that we have not decided upon the merits of the case of the petitioner including title of the petitioner to the said block.

In these premises, the petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order :