Whether revenue authorities can decide question of title during mutation proceeding?

In my view, the validity of the development agreement and the two power of attorneys as well as the conveyance deed which were all registered cannot be gone into by the revenue authority in the proceedings under section 149 read with section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The revenue authority has no power to adjudicate upon the title in respect of the property in respect of which an application for reporting the rights under section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is made by the applicant.

33. This Court in an unreported judgment in the case of Akhtar Hasan Rizvi vs. Harish R. Bhattad & Ors., delivered on 24th April 2018 in Writ Petition No. 10914 of 2017 has held that the revenue authority cannot adjudicate upon the title in respect of the property for which an application for recording the names in the revenue record is made by one of the parties eligible to apply under section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Akhtar Hasan Rizvi vs. Harish R. Bhattad & Ors. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this Court. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment. The aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and the judgment delivered by this Court would also squarely apply to the facts of this Court. In my view, the impugned orders passed by the learned Revenue Minister dated 8th March 2018 and the learned Additional Commissioner dated 3rd June 2017 thus deserve to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5051 of 2018

Decided On: 15.06.2018

 Ramesh Shantilal Modi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 173

Print Page

Whether revenue authority can decide question of title during mutation proceeding?

 At the same time it is also to be noted that in case there is any application by the respondents for mutation of entries in their favour based on any valid and lawfully registered document or any decision pronounced by any court or judicial or quasi-judicial authority competent to pronounce such decision, certainly the Authorities acting under sections 149 and 150 of the said Code cannot ignore such application nor can refuse to carry out the mutation in accordance with the declaration of right in favour of the party by virtue of such decision of the Court or the competent Authority. In case of any conflict between such entries, the parties have to settle the dispute by taking resort to the regular remedy available under appropriate statutes but the revenue authorities acting under Sections 149 and 150 of the Code cannot assume jurisdiction to decide about the rights of the parties in relation to properties, while acting under those provisions for the purpose of mutations. Albeit, the revenue authorities can certainly decide in such cases, the issue of actual possession. However, such decision would be final, subject to the decision of the civil court in that regard.

Bombay High Court

Shrikant R. Sankanwar And Ors. vs Krishna Balu Naukudkar on 16 January, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2003 (3) BomCR 45, 2003 (2) MhLj 276

Bench: R Khandeparkar

Print Page

Whether revenue officer can decide legality of registered document?

 In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the petitioners had produced a registered sale deed dated 15-7-1998 while requesting for entry in their favour in mutation register. The Talathi based on the said document had allowed the application filed by the petitioners and had carried out necessary mutation in the register. The Sub-Divisional Officer while dealing with the appeal against the decision on mutation of entry, assuming illegally, the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tenancy Act sought to deal with the controversy pertaining to the tenancy claim and right under the provisions of The Bombay Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1948, sought to set aside the said decision of Tahsildar allowing the application for mutation of entry, and thereby clearly transgressed the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities available under the provisions of the said Code and the said rules in relation to disputes pertaining to the mutation of entries. Additional Divisional Commissioner by confirming the said order of the said Divisional Officer reiterated the same illegality. Apparently both the authorities have acted illegally and beyond the powers vested in them in relation to the proceedings pertaining to mutation of entries under the said Code and the said rules, and therefore the orders passed by them cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. At the same time it is also to be noted that in case there is any application by the respondents for mutation of entries in their favour based on any valid and lawfully registered document or any decision pronounced by any court or judicial or quasi-judicial authority competent to pronounce such decision, certainly the Authorities acting under sections 149 and 150 of the said Code cannot ignore such application nor can refuse to carry out the mutation in accordance with the declaration of right in favour of the party by virtue of such decision of the Court or the competent Authority. In case of any conflict between such entries, the parties have to settle the dispute by taking resort to the regular remedy available under appropriate statutes but the revenue authorities acting under Sections 149 and 150 of the Code cannot assume jurisdiction to decide about the rights of the parties in relation to properties, while acting under those provisions for the purpose of mutations. Albeit, the revenue authorities can certainly decide in such cases, the issue of actual possession. However, such decision would be final, subject to the decision of the civil court in that regard.


Bombay High Court

Shrikant R. Sankanwar And Ors. vs Krishna Balu
 Naukudkar on 16 January, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2003 (3) BomCR 45, 
2003 (2) MhLj 276

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Print Page