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
The petitioner admittedly
purposes is not valid.
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, through its Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai and others
CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
P.B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 27, 2013.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
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
The petitioner admittedly
6.
purposes is not valid.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment