Whether it is necessary to obtain no objection from collector for mutation of transfer of land?

Prayer of petitioner is to set aside the
communication   dated   7th  June,   2011,   sent   by
Taluka Inspector Land Records (TILR), Murtijapur,
Akola, rejecting his request for mutation on the
ground that it is not accompanied by No Objection
Certificate (NOC) of the Collector, Akola.  
3. Shri.   G.   K.   Mundhada,   the   learned
Counsel for the petitioner, relies upon provisions of
Section   149   of   the   Maharashtra   Land   Revenue

Code,   1966,   to   urge   that   the   petitioner   had
purchased a residential Nazul plot bearing No. 1, 2
and   3­6,   Sheet   No.   26(B),   admeasuring   119.7
sq.mtrs. with construction of 74.34 sq.mtrs., vide
registered   Sale   Deed   dated   8th  April,   2004   for
valuable consideration. The document is registered
at   serial   No.   875/2004   and   in   view   of   said
production,   it   was   obligatory   upon   Revenue
authorities   to   take   note   thereof   and   correct
revenue records.   He further relies upon order of
this   Court   dated   12th  June,   2012   to   urge   that
calling   upon   petitioner   to   produce   NOC   from
Collector is already found irrelevant and arbitrary
by this Court.  
 The   petitioner   admittedly     has
purchased the  land by registered document and
hence   his   rights   need   to   be   taken   note   of   in
Revenue Records.   Mere entry in the land record
does   not   confer   any   title   and   cannot   prejudice
contentions   of   any   private   party   in   the   matter.
Demand of NOC by impugned order, therefore, is
unjustified in present facts.  This Court has, while
deciding writ petition No. 1023 of 2012 on 12th
June, 2012, has already found refusal to consider
such application for mutation unjustified.  In view
of   this   position,   we   set   aside   the   impugned
communication   dated   7th  June,   2011.     The
respondent No. 3 shall look into the request made
by petitioner in accordance with law and without
insisting for such NOC within  a period of eight
weeks from today.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 375 of 2013
Abdul Vahabkhan Abdul Sattarkhan
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 
CORAM :  B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
P.B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED  :  JUNE 27, 2013.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Prayer of petitioner is to set aside the
communication   dated   7th  June,   2011,   sent   by
Taluka Inspector Land Records (TILR), Murtijapur,
Akola, rejecting his request for mutation on the
ground that it is not accompanied by No Objection
Certificate (NOC) of the Collector, Akola.  
3. Shri.   G.   K.   Mundhada,   the   learned
Counsel for the petitioner, relies upon provisions of
Section   149   of   the   Maharashtra   Land   Revenue

Code,   1966,   to   urge   that   the   petitioner   had
purchased a residential Nazul plot bearing No. 1, 2
and   3­6,   Sheet   No.   26(B),   admeasuring   119.7
sq.mtrs. with construction of 74.34 sq.mtrs., vide
registered   Sale   Deed   dated   8th  April,   2004   for
valuable consideration. The document is registered
at   serial   No.   875/2004   and   in   view   of   said
production,   it   was   obligatory   upon   Revenue
authorities   to   take   note   thereof   and   correct
revenue records.   He further relies upon order of
this   Court   dated   12th  June,   2012   to   urge   that
calling   upon   petitioner   to   produce   NOC   from
Collector is already found irrelevant and arbitrary
by this Court.  
4. Shri.   T.   R.   Kankale,   the   learned
Assistant   Government   Pleader   for   respondents,
submits that by calling upon NOC from the office
of   Collector   has   not   adjudicated   any   right   of
petitioner.  He further contends that the petitioner
along   with   impugned   communication   dated   7th
June, 2011 could have approached said authority
and point out the order of High Court dated 12th
June, 2012.   He, therefore, prays for dismissal of
writ petition.  

5. In   reply  Shri.  Mundhada,   the   learned
Counsel   for   the   petitioner,   has   invited   our
attention to clarification issued on 10th December,
2012, by Revenue and Forest Department, which
stipulates   that   as   there   is   no   such   statutory
requirement,   demand   of   NOC   for   mutation
purposes is not valid.  
6. The   petitioner   admittedly     has
purchased the  land by registered document and
hence   his   rights   need   to   be   taken   note   of   in
Revenue Records.   Mere entry in the land record
does   not   confer   any   title   and   cannot   prejudice
contentions   of   any   private   party   in   the   matter.
Demand of NOC by impugned order, therefore, is
unjustified in present facts.  This Court has, while
deciding writ petition No. 1023 of 2012 on 12th
June, 2012, has already found refusal to consider
such application for mutation unjustified.  In view
of   this   position,   we   set   aside   the   impugned
communication   dated   7th  June,   2011.     The
respondent No. 3 shall look into the request made
by petitioner in accordance with law and without
insisting for such NOC within  a period of eight
weeks from today.  

7. With these directions and observations,
we dispose of writ petition.  No costs.
                 JUDGE JUDGE

Print Page