The Bombay High Court has clarified that the power of revenue authorities under Sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is strictly limited to updating revenue records for fiscal and administrative purposes based on the acquisition of rights. These authorities are not empowered to adjudicate upon the title or substantive rights of the parties to immovable properties, as this jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the civil courts.
Consequently, the Court held that when a claim for mutation is founded upon a registered Consent Decree passed by a competent civil court, which has attained finality, the revenue authorities are duty-bound to give effect to it for the limited purpose of mutation. The Court said that Revenue Authorities cannot sit in appeal over the decree, question its legality, re-examine the underlying transaction, or refuse to act upon it by delving into issues such as testamentary succession, the authority of vendors, or the validity of the decree’s registration, as these are matters beyond their statutory competence.
The Court therefore quashed all three impugned orders, and directed that Mutation Entry No. 2248 in the Property Register Card for the subject property in favour of the Petitioner shall be restored. It clarified that this restoration is purely for fiscal and administrative purposes and does not confer, declare, or extinguish title, nor does it prejudice the right of any party to seek appropriate relief before a competent civil court. The City Survey Officer, was also directed to implement this order by making the necessary entries within four weeks.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kamal Khata observed that the legal position governing mutation entries in revenue records is well-settled; they are maintained primarily for fiscal and administrative purposes and do not, by themselves, create, confer, or extinguish title to the property. The Bench clarified that revenue authorities acting under Sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, are not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate complex questions of title, the validity of testamentary succession, or the enforceability of civil court decrees, as these matters fall exclusively within the domain of competent civil courts.
The Bench pointed out that the revenue authorities had travelled far beyond their limited jurisdiction by entering into an elaborate examination of the Petitioner’s title, the authority of her vendors, the effect of prohibitory orders, and the legality of the registration of the Consent Decree, which the Court deemed an impermissible exercise amounting to sitting in appeal over a judicial decree.
The Bench also observed that Respondent No. 5’s claim to be a ‘person interested’ was insufficient, as a bare assertion of a right without any cogent documentary evidence, such as a registered lease deed, cannot be used to obstruct mutation proceedings founded on a registered court decree.
Briefly, the case revolves around the subject property located at Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai, originally owned by John Alexander Dias. Upon his death in 1966, the property devolved to his widow, Lidwina Mary Dias, who passed away later the same year, leaving the property to her siblings, Mona Oliver, Collette Oliver, and George Oliver, through a Will. In the meantime, the Petitioner, Meena A. Rizvi, entered into an Agreement for Sale for the property with these siblings.
When the vendors failed to perform their obligations, the Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance, which resulted in a Consent Decree passed by the High Court, directing the conveyance of the property to the Petitioner. This Consent Decree was registered after a delay of nearly 22 years due to pending issues regarding stamp duty payment. The Petitioner then applied for the mutation of her name in the Property Register Card based on this registered decree.
The Respondent No. 5, claiming to be a lessee, objected to the mutation. Although the mutation was initially allowed, it was subsequently set aside by Respondent No. 3, a decision that was upheld by Respondent No. 2, and finally by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner challenged these three orders, which collectively deleted her name from the property records.
Appearances:
Advocate Drupad Patil, for the Petitioner
AGP Gauri Sawant and Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, for the Respondent
