TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court reinstates Tahsildar's decision, limits revenue authority's jurisdiction, lifts stay under Section 32G</h1> <h3>Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors. Versus Krishna Balu Naukudkar</h3> The Court quashed the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner, reinstating the Tahsildar's decision to allow the petitioners' ... - Issues Involved:1. Scope of powers of Revenue Officers under Section 149 and Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.2. Legality of the exercise of powers by Revenue Authorities, particularly the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner.3. Procedural requirements for mutation of entries in revenue records.4. Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities in adjudicating rights and title to immovable properties.5. Impact of registered documents and court decisions on mutation entries.6. Finality of decisions by Revenue Authorities subject to civil court adjudication.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Scope of Powers of Revenue Officers under Section 149 and Section 150:Section 149 requires any person acquiring rights in land to report the acquisition to the Talathi within three months, except when the acquisition is through a registered document or with the Collector's permission. Section 150 mandates the Talathi to enter such reports in the register of mutations and notify interested parties. The powers under these sections are confined to updating revenue records based on reported acquisitions and do not extend to adjudicating the rights or title of parties in immovable properties.2. Legality of the Exercise of Powers by Revenue Authorities:The petitioners challenged the Additional Commissioner's order, which confirmed the Sub-Divisional Officer's decision to set aside the Tahsildar's mutation entry. The Court found that both the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner acted beyond their jurisdiction by addressing tenancy claims under the Bombay Agricultural Tenancy Act, which is outside the scope of Sections 149 and 150. Their actions were deemed patently illegal.3. Procedural Requirements for Mutation of Entries:The Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights and Registers (Preparation and Maintenance) Rules, 1971, outline the procedure for mutation entries. The Talathi must acknowledge reports of acquisition, enter them in the mutation register, and notify interested parties. Disputes regarding entries are to be resolved based on possession and documentary evidence, with the certifying officer holding a summary inquiry.4. Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities in Adjudicating Rights and Title:Revenue authorities under Sections 149 and 150 are not empowered to adjudicate the rights or title to immovable properties. Their role is limited to verifying the documents produced and updating the revenue records accordingly. Any disputes regarding the actual rights or title must be resolved by civil courts or other competent judicial authorities.5. Impact of Registered Documents and Court Decisions on Mutation Entries:The authorities must give due credence to registered documents and court decisions when updating mutation entries. In the case at hand, the petitioners presented a registered sale deed, which should have been sufficient for the mutation entry. The authorities' refusal to recognize this document and their overreach into tenancy issues were beyond their jurisdiction.6. Finality of Decisions by Revenue Authorities Subject to Civil Court Adjudication:Decisions by revenue authorities regarding possession and mutation entries are final but subject to review by civil courts. The authorities can decide on actual possession based on documentary evidence, but such decisions are not conclusive regarding the title or rights to the property.Conclusion:The Court quashed the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner, reinstating the Tahsildar's decision to allow the petitioners' mutation entry based on the registered sale deed. The Court emphasized that revenue authorities must confine their actions to updating records and cannot adjudicate property rights, which are within the purview of civil courts. The stay on proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Agricultural Tenancy Act was vacated, and the petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
