Bombay HC: Testamentary demarcation amounts to partition.

 As regards jointness, it is not in dispute that the property has devolved on three sons by virtue of will executed by their father. The will demarcates the portion allotted to each son. There is a specific averment in the plaint that the father had divided the property between three brothers by virtue of the will. It is further stated that family of each brother was in occupation of the specific portion allotted to him by virtue of the will. Thus, separate identifiable portions in the suit house were bequeathed by the father in favour of each son. There is clear demarcation of share of each son in the will. It is, therefore, clear that the brothers got three separately demarcated shares in the suit property by virtue of the will. The will vested each brother with a separate share in the suit property and each brother received separate possession thereof. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 to 13 are descendants of the said three brothers. The suit house, therefore, cannot be said to be a joint family dwelling house of the three sons. The contention is fortified by the plaint averments. The only contention in the plaint with respect to the suit property being joint residential house is that the same was jointly mutated in the records of City Survey Department and Nagpur Municipal Corporation. It is well settled that the mutation entries are merely for fiscal purposes and by themselves cannot determine the nature of property held by a co-owner. The contention that the property is joint, is sufficiently negated by the contents of the will and other averments in the plaint.  {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 91 of 2025

Decided On: 16.10.2025

Saroj and Ors. Vs. Umesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.W. Joshi, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:11283, MANU/MH/6940/2025.

Read full judgment here :Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies only to intestate succession.

 There is another reason for which right of preemption will not be available i.e. the property has devolved by testamentary succession and not by intestate succession. {Para 13}

Ratio:- The right of pre-emption under Section 22 is available only when property devolves by intestate succession and only inter se between Class-I heirs of the deceased. It does not apply where the property devolves by testamentary succession (Will).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 91 of 2025

Decided On: 16.10.2025

Saroj and Ors. Vs. Umesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.W. Joshi, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:11283, MANU/MH/6940/2025.

Read full judgment here :Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act does not invalidate sale by a co-owner.

In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, even Section 44 of the TP Act does not come to the aid of the plaintiffs for the reason that the house property was not joint dwelling house of families of all three brothers and also on the ground that Section 44 of the TP Act does not prohibit sale of property by a co-owner. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 91 of 2025

Decided On: 16.10.2025

Saroj and Ors. Vs. Umesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.W. Joshi, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:11283, MANU/MH/6940/2025.

Read full judgment here :Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Mutation entries cannot determine the nature of property held by a co-owner

  As regards jointness, it is not in dispute that the property has devolved on three sons by virtue of will executed by their father. The will demarcates the portion allotted to each son. There is a specific averment in the plaint that the father had divided the property between three brothers by virtue of the will. It is further stated that family of each brother was in occupation of the specific portion allotted to him by virtue of the will. Thus, separate identifiable portions in the suit house were bequeathed by the father in favour of each son. There is clear demarcation of share of each son in the will. It is, therefore, clear that the brothers got three separately demarcated shares in the suit property by virtue of the will. The will vested each brother with a separate share in the suit property and each brother received separate possession thereof. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 to 13 are descendants of the said three brothers. The suit house, therefore, cannot be said to be a joint family dwelling house of the three sons. The contention is fortified by the plaint averments. The only contention in the plaint with respect to the suit property being joint residential house is that the same was jointly mutated in the records of City Survey Department and Nagpur Municipal Corporation. It is well settled that the mutation entries are merely for fiscal purposes and by themselves cannot determine the nature of property held by a co-owner. {Para 20}.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 91 of 2025

Decided On: 16.10.2025

Saroj and Ors. Vs. Umesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.W. Joshi, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:11283, MANU/MH/6940/2025.

Read full judgment here :Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Descendants of Class-I heirs cannot claim pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act

Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act provides right of preemption in favour of heirs of a deceased Hindu inter se amongst the Class-I legal heirs, in case where the owner dies intestate. Perusal of the provision will indicate that right of preemption is not available in case of a testamentary succession. Moreover, the right is conferred inter se between legal heirs specified in Class-I of the Schedule. The property belonged to Tukaram, his Class-I legal heirs were his widow-Janki and three sons, who are predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 to 13. The right of preemption is restricted only to Class-I legal heirs of the deceased-owner and not to the descendants of Class-I legal heirs of the owner. In the case at hand, it is apparent that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 to 13 are descendants of Class-I legal heirs of deceased-Tukaram. They are not Class-I legal heirs of Tukaram. In view of the above, it is apparent that the plaintiffs cannot claim right of preemption against defendant Nos.4 to 12. {Para 12}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 91 of 2025

Decided On: 16.10.2025

Saroj and Ors. Vs. Umesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.W. Joshi, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:11283, MANU/MH/6940/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Revenue authority can do mutation entry on the basis of will by clarifying that such entry would remain subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings on title

The full bench decision makes it clear that there is no bar for seeking mutation based on a will. However, in a case of serious dispute regarding the validity/ genuineness of the will including competence of testator's capacity to execute it, or where there are two rival wills set up, it would be a dispute beyond the competence of the Tahsildar to decide, and in such a case the appropriate course for the parties would be to approach the Civil Court to get the dispute adjudicated.

19. But what is important is that mutation does not confer any right, title or interest on a person. Mutation in the revenue records is only for fiscal purposes   MANU/SC/0684/2021, therefore, where there is no serious dispute raised by any natural legal heir, if any, of the tenure holder, in absence of any legal bar, mutation based on a will should not be denied as it would defeat the interest of Revenue.

20. In Jitendra Singh (supra) this Court observed that if there is any dispute with respect to the title, more particularly when the mutation entry is sought on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right will have to approach the appropriate Civil Court/ Revenue Court and get his rights adjudicated. However, in our view, this cannot be taken as a law proscribing mutation based on a will particularly where the legal heirs of the tenure holder raise no dispute.

21. In the present case, none of the legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder raised a dispute regarding the will. The will is a registered document. The objection, if any, is from the first Respondent who claims himself to be in occupation of a particular piece of land held by the deceased tenure holder. Moreover, the claim of first Respondent is based on an agreement for sale, and possession thereunder. Admittedly, the same is not a registered document and there appears to be no decree of specific performance in his favour thus far. In such circumstances, if the Tehsildar and other revenue authorities had allowed mutation on the basis of the will by making it subject to regular civil proceedings, we do not find any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the mutation order as may warrant interference in exercise of powers Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 

Decided On: 19.12.2025

 Tarachandra Vs. Bhawarlal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1485,MANU/SC/1720/2025.

Print Page

Gujarat HC: The civil court has jurisdiction to set aside mutation entry done in revenue record on the basis of unregistered oral sale

Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act provides that if some tangible immovable property worth less than Rs. 100.00 (Rupees One Hundred only) is sold and delivery of possession is also effected, then, such sale, on delivery of possession, would be complete. The law provides that if any tangible immovable property worth Rs. 100.00 (Rupees One Hundred only) or more is sought to be transferred or alienated, then, such transfer is required on proper stamp and is required to be registered also. Consequence of non-registration is shown under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Section 49 clearly provides that in a case where document, which under the law, was required to be registered, if is not registered, then, the same would not be admitted in evidence, except for collateral purpose. If a document is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon, nor does convey title in the law, then, on the basis of such document, an entry could not be made in the revenue record. In the revenue record, entry can be made only if some legal document conveys title in favour of the purchaser or, person aspiring for entry in his favour has obtained right under some revenue laws. In the present case, on the basis of an unregistered sale, which admittedly was oral one, an entry in favour of the defendant could not be made. {Para 7}

8. Civil Court ordinarily would not interfere in the matters where Courts of limited jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction have exercised their authority. A Civil Court would interfere in a matter, if it is held by the Court that provisions of law have been violated to their hilt, the authority/officer had no jurisdiction to do something or principles of natural justice have been violated. The moment the Court comes to the conclusion that act or action of an authority is bad and runs contrary to law, then, the Civil Court shall immediately assume the jurisdiction and correct the wrong committed by the authorities. The Courts below, in the considered opinion of this Court were unjustified in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The concept of jurisdiction is not based upon the plain reading of provisions of law, because, it is trite to say that a Civil Court is always jealous of a provision which ousts its jurisdiction. A Civil Court has to be too cautious and careful in understanding and appreciating the provisions which say that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. All the conditions to denude the Civil Court of its powers must be complied with. Moment a Civil Court holds that any other Court of exclusive jurisdiction has violated the provisions of law or has not observed the law or has violated the principles of natural justice, then it is bound to exercise its jurisdiction.

9. In the opinion of this Court, entry made in favour of the respondents could not be made by any person whatsoever authority he had. The entry was patently without jurisdiction, it deserves to and is accordingly set aside.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Second Appeal No. 28 of 1990

Decided On: 16.03.2007

Radhiben and Ors. Vs. Surtan Vesta Damor and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Garg, J.

Citation: 2007 AIR (Gujarat) 147, MANU/GJ/7080/2007.

Print Page

Decoding revenue Jargon for better appreciation of land Dispute(Real Estate)

A) Procedure for sanctioning of layout.

1) 10% open space is to be left for sanctioning of layout

2) tentative layout,

3) Approval

4) demarcated layout on spot

5) sanctioned layout.

6) revised layout if there is dispute.

This procedure is available under building byelaws

B) When city survey is done, Property card is issued.

Chalta sheet is maintained which shows which city survey is converted into which CTS No. in urban area. 

C) Gut no. is in respect of agricultural land .

Khasra patrak and pahni patrak are in respect of agricultural land 

Survey no is converted in to gut no in case of agricultural land.

Print Page

Whether agricultural land can be treated as private forest land?

  In the present case, admittedly there is no declaration /

notice / notification in respect of the said lands being classified and

declared as 'private forest'. Further under the provisions of Section 2

read with Section 3 of the State Act, the said lands have to be a 'forest' before it could be classified as a 'private forest' and thereafter declared to be a 'reserved forest'. According to the Petitioners the provisions of Section 3(2) of the State Act expressly excludes land under cultivation i.e. 'agricultural land' even if it is comprised in a 'private forest'. The said lands stand outside the purview of the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act as they are not a forest and if that be so there can be no question of de-reservation or denotification or seeking approval for the use of forest land for non-forest purpose. {Para 12}

13. The entire controversy in the present case has arisen due to

the unilateral Mutation entry No.720 recorded in the Mutation

Register pertaining to the said lands which classified the said lands as 'forest lands'; this mutation entry was solely based on the

communication dated 11.11.2005 addressed by the Respondent No.3 - Deputy Conservation of Forest to the Respondent No.2 - Collector

without any substantive basis / evidence as observed by us.

13.1. We have noted that the said Mutation entry was effected

with reference to the State Act. The Petitioners therefore filed the

statutory appeal seeking adjudication under the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act. However, once the Respondent No.2 - Collector has declared the said lands as 'not private forest' under Section 6 of the State Act, the applicability of the Central Act to the said lands does not arise. As seen, the said lands have been certified as 'agricultural lands' in the various revenue records and as such under Section 3(2) of the State Act, on this count also they cannot be deemed to be 'forest land' much less private forest land. Save and except the unilateral Mutation entry, admittedly there is no other evidence or material placed on record by the Respondents to classify, certify or notify the said lands as 'forest land'. The reasoned decision/order passed by the  Respondent No.2 - Collector declaring the said lands as 'not private forest' under the State Act therefore decides the status of the said lands.

14. Under Section 2 of the Central Act the approval of the

Central Government is necessary only if the land is a forest and if the State Government passes an order directing that any reserved forest shall cease to be reserved; or any forest land is used for non-forest purpose; or any forest land is assigned to a private person or a nongovernment organization; or any forest land may be cleared of trees or re-afforestation. Thus it is clear that for the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act to apply, it it necessary in the first place that the said lands have to be 'forest land'. However if the said lands are not forest land then the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 are inapplicable and thus the permission sought by the Respondent No.2 - Collector from the Central Government with respect to its decision of

declaration of the said lands as 'not private forest' is wholly illegal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 95 OF 2020

 Sankalp Resorts Limited  Vs State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 15.03.2022.

JUDGMENT (Per : S.J. Kathawalla & Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.)

Print Page

Whether parties claiming based on doubtful will should approach civil court before approaching revenue court for mutation entry?

 It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of

Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when

the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the partywho is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made. {Para 5}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 13146/2021

JITENDRA SINGH  Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Dated: SEPTEMBER 06, 2021

Print Page

Whether the court can infer acceptance of a gift of immovable property from mutation entries?

 The word acceptance is defined as "is the receipt of a thing offered by another with an intention to retain it, as acceptance of a gift." (See Ramanatha P. Aiyar: The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., page 19).

26. The aforesaid fact can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the donee or by being in the possession of the gift deed itself. The only requirement stipulated here is that, the acceptance of the gift must be effectuated within the lifetime of the donor itself.

27. Hence, being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee. The aforesaid position has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Asokan v. Lakshmikutty, MANU/SC/0104/2008 : (2007) 13 SCC 210

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance.

(emphasis supplied)

28. In the present case, the gift deed itself contained certain recitals as mentioned below:

...Out of the aforesaid land in all the khasra's 1/2 part means 50 percent I am giving you in gift being my younger son with my pleasure. My elder son Shri Babu Singh has no objection to this gift ... From today you are the owner of the half of the land gifted to you and you will have possession hereafter. You have the complete right over the aforesaid land for cultivation from today onward. Now you get the gifted land mutated in your name... These lands have not been sold or under Will or under the gift earlier. Further I state that the aforesaid land is free from any debt liability... The registration of the aforesaid gift has been done by me in my sound physical and mental health with consent without any undue coercion and pressure from anyone. I have gifted the aforesaid land with my sweet will and wish...

These recitals clearly indicate that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed.

29. In order to show acceptance, the counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to the mutation records. The Mutation entry in the Revenue Record of Gram Sedriya, District Pali dated 28.10.1968 clearly reflects that half portion of Appellant's land was bestowed as a gift by the Appellant to his son through a registered instrument of gift dated 19.12.1963.

30. Furthermore, the statement dated 31.08.1984, rendered by the Appellant-donor before the Court of Additional District Magistrate indicates that the donee was already a major at the time of the execution of the gift deed. He further stated that after execution of the gift deed the donee started cultivating on the same.

31. The aforesaid statement of the Appellant-donor is completely supported by the statement made by the donee on 15.12.1988 before the Court of Additional District Magistrate. Therein, the donee clearly stated that, as he did not get along with his step-mother, he started living separately and the land was transferred to him by virtue of gift deed was under his possession and he was cultivating the same.

32. Therefore, the abovementioned circumstances clearly indicate that there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. Not only the gift deed in itself contained recitals about transfer of possession, but also the mutation records and the statements of the both the donor and donee indicate that, there has been an acceptance of the gift by conduct.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5650 of 2010

Decided On: 08.12.2020

Daulat Singh (D) thr. L.Rs. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0926/2020

Print Page

Whether a person can not claim the title in the property even if the revenue record shows his name in respect of said immovable property?

 The contention raised by the Appellants is that since Mangal

Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per

the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self acquired  property.

The said contention is legally misconceived since entries

in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor

do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only

enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to

pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question.

As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhar’s

name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a

recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him

the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5919 OF 2011

Prahlad Pradhan Vs  Sonu Kumhar

Dated: October 16, 2019

Author: INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Print Page

Whether judgment passed by civil court is binding on revenue authorities while carrying out mutation entries?

 In my view, the Law in relation to mutation entries, pursuant
to civil court proceedings, is no longer resintergra.
This Court, in the
matter of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors. vs Krishna Balu
Naukudkar, 2003 (3) Bom.CR 45 has laid down the Law that when it
comes to carrying out mutation entries, the best piece of evidence
has to be considered in cases where there is no verdict of the Civil
Court. In cases where the Civil Court had an occasion to deal with

the
claims of the parties in relation to their right, title and interest
over immovable properties, it was held that the verdict of the Civil
Court would bind the revenue authorities and mutation entries,
which are meant for fiscal purposes, should be carried out in tune
with the verdict of the Civil Court. It was also concluded that the
verdict of the Civil Court would bind the revenue authorities in
matters of carrying out mutation entries and not viceversa.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2019

Gangabai Ramrao Patil,  Vs   The State of Maharashtra,

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
DATE : 07/06/2019
Citation: 2019(6) MHLJ 896

Print Page

Whether revenue record entry can be challenged on ground that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously?

When in a record operation
order is passed for deleting the name of Amar Singh
from possession over the land in question, Amar Singh

cannot be held to be recorded occupant within the
meaning of Section 10(e).
12. The High Court has dealt with the above aspect of
the matter and has held that continuous of entry
after the order of deletion of the name of Amar Singh
cannot confer any right. The judgment of this Court
in Vishwa Vijay Bharati vs. Fakhrul Hassan and
others, (1976) 3 SCC 642, has rightly been referred
to and relied by the High court. This Court in
paragraph 14 of the judgment was laid down following:
“14. It is true that the entries in the
revenue record ought, generally, to be
accepted at their face value and courts
should not embark upon an appellate inquiry
into their correctness. But the presumption
of correctness can apply only to genuine,
not forged or fraudulent, entries. The
distinction may be fine but it is real. The
distinction is that one cannot challenge
the correctness of what the entry in the
revenue record states but the entry is open
to the attack that it was made fraudulently
or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a
document of all its legal effect and cannot
found a claim to possessory title.”
13. The order of A.R.O. directing the deletion of the
name of Amar Singh was passed on the report of Record
Operation Officials in which report it was mentioned
that the name of Amar Singh has been surreptitiously

recorded. The report was accepted and the direction
was issued to delete the name. We, thus, are of the
clear opinion that Asami right could not have been
obtained by Amar Singh.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.516 OF 2009

DHARAM SINGH Vs. PREM SINGH 

Dated:February 05, 2019.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Print Page

Whether registered partition deed is required for effecting mutation entries?

 Learned Counsel Shri Deshpande further states that the joint family property received by the coparcener in the partition is not a transfer and for this purpose, the learned Counsel is relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel,. Similarly, it is further contended that since it is not the transfer, it is not necessary to register the deed of transfer. In support of this contention, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil (died) and Anr.,

4. In view of above referred decisions of the Apex Court, it is clear that the property received by the coparcener in the partition of joint Hindu family property is not a transfer and, therefore, registration of transfer deed is not necessary. We direct the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner for mutation according to law, without insisting for registration of the document. With these observations, the petition is disposed of."

8. Based on the conclusions of this Court in the case of Arvind Deshpande (supra), the competent authority issued a circular dated 10/05/2006 clearly indicating that when undivided Hindu family members desire to partition the land and seek mutation entries on the basis of such partition deed, the Revenue Authorities shall not insist on the partition deed being registered as a pre-condition for considering it as a foundation for effecting mutation entries. By the said circular, clauses 1 and 3 of the earlier circular dated 26/05/1995 were set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 703 of 2014

Decided On: 15.06.2017

Manikchand Hiralal Nahar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Ghuge, J.

Citation: 2018(1) MHLJ 379

Print Page

Whether mutation entries in absence of registered relinquishment deed can be relied on?

Since this Court has already come to the conclusion, on the basis of aforesaid provision of law as well as material available on record, that no immovable property could be relinquished without there being registered document, mutation, if any, conducted on the basis of oral relinquishment/'Azadinama' as reflected in Ex. P-1 and Ex. DX has no bearing on the rights of plaintiff, who is absolute owner of the suit land.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Regular Second Appeal No. 23 of 2006

Decided On: 05.05.2017

 Piar Chand and Ors. Vs. Sant Ram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Citation:AIR 2017(NOC) 918 HP

Print Page

Whether dispute relating to mutation entries of wakf property can be referred to wakf tribunal?

 No doubt, Section 83 of Wakf Act, 1995 says about the constitution of Tribunal for determination of any disputed question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property and the aforesaid Act bars the jurisdiction of courts to entertain the dispute relating to wakf or wakf property but the dispute in the present matter does not relate to the right and title as well as nature of wakf property rather it relates to mutation proceeding and admittedly, the wakf Tribunal has got no power to pass an order of mutation because the aforesaid power lies with revenue officials. Therefore, in my view, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents rightly submitted that learned Additional Collector was right in passing the impugned order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5953 of 2009

Decided On: 03.07.2017

Masjid and Madarasa Committee Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.
Citation: AIR 2017 PATNA 137

Print Page

Whether presumption of correctness of revenue entries is applicable to forged or fraudulent, entries?

 It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.

Supreme Court of India

Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors on 4 May, 1976

Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1485, 1976 SCR 519

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. SHINGAL, P.N.

Print Page

Whether title to immovable property can be transferred on basis of power of attorney or will?

Three Judge Bench of this Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.(2) vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656, considered the validity of such SA/GPA/WILL transaction and observed thus:

"23. Therefore, an SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor creates any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank, (2001) 94 DLT 841, that the "concept of power-of-attorney sales has been recognised as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognised or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognise or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.

24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/WILL transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent ofSection 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales."
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

D.D.A vs Gaurav Kukreja on 24 March, 2015

Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi

Print Page

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

Print Page