LexNARAYAN LAXMAN PATIL versus M/S GALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 11 S.C.R. 861 NARAYAN LAXMAN PATIL v. M/S GALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Civil Appeal No.8399 of 2015 OCTOBER 08, 2015 [RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] A B Mutation: Claim by appellant for entry in record of rights c on the ground that he was in uninterrupted possession of the suit land since long along with six other persons and cultivating paddy crop on the said land- Held: While seeking entry in the .record of rights, the appellant did not spell out 1-/is status or claim or his capacity in which he sought to get D his name entered - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - ss.2(12), 148, 149, 150. Legislation: When the statute states that a duty has to be performed or an enquiry has to be conducted in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. To exercise the right under section 148 read with Sections 149 and 150 of the Maparashtra Land F Revenue Code for entering one's name in the Record of Rights, the applicant has to be a holder, occu :>ant, owner, mortgagee or tenant. Such a right is also a 1ailable to a person acquiring interest in the property by ;uccession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase mortgage, G gift, lease or otherwise. Merely a holder or occupant does not meet the requirements· of law for exercising such a right. Section 2(12) of the Code, makes itclearthatto be a "land holder" or "holder of land" means to be lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is H 861 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 11 S.C.R. A actual or not and as per Section 2(23) "occupant" means a holder in actual possession of unalienated land. It was, therefore, necessary for the appellant to prove that his possession or occupation over the suit land was lawful or he had come in possession by a legal conveyance/ B title or any other instrument like receipt etc. to which the Respondent No. 1 was a party or at its instance. [Paras 15, 18] [876-C;E-G] 2. Merely saying that Respondent No. 1 or the C original owner did not object at any time to the possession, does not make his possession lawful, even if it is accepted that he was in possession. The appellant has to prove his title of possession by pointing out that it was lawful and if .such requirement could not be D proved, mutation entry is required to be cancelled. Unless the officer concerned was satisfied that the possession of the appellant was lawful such an entry could not have been made irrespective of whether the original owner;:; appeared and contested the plea and E more so when the officer was performing a statutory duty. When the statute states that a duty has to be performed or an enquiry has to be conducted in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone F and it was nece~sary for the Tehsildar to ensure that the requirements of the Code were satisfied by the petitioners' predecessor. Since appellant and others never claimed that they had any title to the land, entering their names in the 'Record of Rights' was not at all G justified and, therefore, the Mutation Entry could not have been made in the said record. Hence, the Mutation Entry has rightly been set aside. [Paras 19, 20] [877-A-D, F] Bansrajidevi wdlo Bhuval Singh Ramniranjan H Singh and Others v. Mis Byramjee Jeejeebhoy NARAYAN LAXMAN PATIL v. GALA CONSTRUCTION CO. 863 PVT. LTD. Pvt. Ltd. and Others 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 95 - A approved. 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 95 Case Law Reference approved Para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No .. 8399 of 2015 B From the Judgment and Order dated 22.06.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 245 of 2007 C Abha R. Sharma for the Appellant. Shekhar Naphade, Parimal Shroff, Ankur Saigal, Mahesh Agarwal, E. C. Agrawala, R. N. Keshwani, Ram Lal Roy for the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Leave granted 2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and E order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 245 of 2007 iii Writ Petition No. 2103 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2006 passed by the F learned single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. • 2103 of2003. 3. Brief facts: (a) The land in question, admeasuring 11 acres out of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.