When it is not necessary to obtain No Objection Certificate from sub divisional officer for recording mutation entry?

 On  hearing  the  learned  Counsel  for   the   parties  and   on   a
perusal   of   the   provisions   of   Section   37­A   of   the   Maharashtra   Land
Revenue   Code,   it   appears   that   the   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Land
Records   was   not   justified   in   refusing   to   mutate   the   name   of   the
petitioners in the revenue records for not producing the No Objection
Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur.  It is clear from the
orders passed by this Court from time to time that the respondents had no
authority in law to seek the No Objection Certificate.  The provisions of
Section 37­A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are brought into
effect from 03.03.2015 and since the provisions of Section 37­A(1) are
not   retrospective   in   operation,   the   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Land
Records could not have sought the No Objection Certificate when the
petitioners had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated
13.02.2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3060/2016
Sau. Vanita W/o Diwakar Shukla

V
 State of Maharashtra,

CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.  
    DATE       : 13TH JULY,          2016.
Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR 809

RULE.  Rule made returnable forthwith.  The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the communication
of   the   respondent   No.3,   dated   14.12.2015   demanding   'No   Objection
Certificate' from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur before recording the
mutation entry.
3. The petitioners purchased a plot of land from their vendor by
a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2013.  After purchasing the property
on   13.02.2013,   by   an   application   dated   16.01.2015,   the   petitioners
applied to the concerned authorities under the provisions of Section 149
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for mutating their name in the
revenue records.  By the impugned order, the Deputy Superintendent of
Land   Records   directed   the   petitioners   to   produce   a   No   Objection
Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur.   The petitioners
have impugned the said order in the instant petition.
4. It   is   stated   on   behalf   of   the   petitioners   that   the   Deputy
Superintendent   of   Land   Records   has   no   authority   to   seek   the   No
Objection Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur before
mutating the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.  It is stated
that when such No Objection Certificates were sought by the authorities,
this Court had set aside the said orders on the ground that the authorities
did not have the jurisdiction to do so.   The learned Counsel for the
petitioners has relied on some unreported judgments and orders of this

Court to substantiate his submission.   It is further stated that the State
Government   cannot   rely   on   the   provisions   of   Section   37­A   of   the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as they were brought into effect after
the petitioners had purchased the property by the registered sale deed, on
13.02.2013.
5. Shri   Maldhure,   the   learned   Assistant   Government   Pleader
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondents,   submitted   that   the   Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records had probably sought the No Objection
Certificate on the basis of the amended provisions of the Maharashtra
Land   Revenue   Code.     It   is   stated   that   such   a   certificate   would   be
necessary   in   respect   of   the   sale   deeds   executed   after   the   amended
provisions were brought on the statute book.  It is submitted that Section
37­A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was brought into effect on
03.03.2015 and the petitioners appear to have purchased the property on
13.02.2013.  It is stated that in view of the proviso to Section 37­A, the
provisions of sub­section (1) of Section 37­A would not apply to the sale,
transfer or re­development of the property effected before 03.03.2015.  It
is stated that the proviso stipulates that the provisions of sub­section (1)
of Section 37­A are not retrospective.   It is fairly stated that since the
petitioners   had   purchased   the   land   by   a   registered   sale   deed   on
13.02.2013, the provisions of Section 37­A of the Code may not apply to
the petitioners.

6. On  hearing  the  learned  Counsel  for   the   parties  and   on   a
perusal   of   the   provisions   of   Section   37­A   of   the   Maharashtra   Land
Revenue   Code,   it   appears   that   the   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Land
Records   was   not   justified   in   refusing   to   mutate   the   name   of   the
petitioners in the revenue records for not producing the No Objection
Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur.  It is clear from the
orders passed by this Court from time to time that the respondents had no
authority in law to seek the No Objection Certificate.  The provisions of
Section 37­A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are brought into
effect from 03.03.2015 and since the provisions of Section 37­A(1) are
not   retrospective   in   operation,   the   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Land
Records could not have sought the No Objection Certificate when the
petitioners had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated
13.02.2013.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.   The impugned
order is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.

Print Page