Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Cancellation of Mutation Entry for Land Purchased from Public Trust. Mutation entry No.8930 restored as Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to cancel it without notice and without challenging the sale deed.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Digambar Hiraman Saraf and others, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging an order dated 24.12.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon. The Assistant Collector had cancelled mutation entry No.8930 regarding land bearing S.No.50 situated at Bhusawal and directed restoration of the land to the Government. The petitioners alleged that they had purchased the land from a public trust called 'Shriram Mandir Sansthan, Bhusawal' after obtaining due permission from the Charity Commissioner. The sale was executed by the Archak and trustee of the trust through a registered sale deed, and the petitioners claimed they became owners of the land. The mutation entry was subsequently cancelled by the Assistant Collector without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without challenging the validity of the registered sale deed. The court examined the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector and found that the order was passed without notice to the petitioners, which violated principles of natural justice. The court also noted that mutation entries do not confer title and that the sale deed could not be collaterally challenged without proper proceedings. The court held that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to cancel the mutation entry in such a manner and that the order was unsustainable. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 24.12.1990, and restored mutation entry No.8930.

Headnote

A) Revenue Law - Mutation Entry - Cancellation - Jurisdiction - Assistant Collector - The Assistant Collector cancelled mutation entry No.8930 without notice to the petitioners and without challenging the registered sale deed. Held that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to cancel the mutation entry in such a manner, as mutation entries do not confer title and the sale deed could not be collaterally challenged without proper proceedings. (Paras 1-5)

B) Trust Property - Sale - Permission - Charity Commissioner - The petitioners purchased land from a public trust after obtaining due permission from the Charity Commissioner. The sale was executed by the Archak and trustee of Shriram Mandir Sansthan, Bhusawal. Held that the sale was valid and the petitioners became owners. (Paras 2-3)

C) Limitation - Challenge to Sale - Delay - The Assistant Collector's order cancelling mutation entry was passed after a long delay, and the sale deed was not challenged within the period of limitation. Held that the order was unsustainable. (Para 4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to cancel mutation entry No.8930 without issuing notice to the petitioners and without challenging the validity of the registered sale deed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.12.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon is quashed and set aside. Mutation entry No.8930 is restored.

Law Points

  • Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities
  • Mutation Entries
  • Sale of Trust Property
  • Notice Requirement
  • Limitation for Challenging Sale
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 419

Writ Petition No.794 of 1991

2010-01-19

V.R. Kingaonkar

Ms. Vasundhara Kudmulwar for petitioners, Mr. D.R. Kale for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. V.V. Deshmukh holding for Mr. V.J. Dixit for respondent no.3

Digambar Hiraman Saraf and others

State of Maharashtra and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging order of Assistant Collector cancelling mutation entry.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of order dated 24.12.1990 cancelling mutation entry No.8930 and restoration of the entry.

Filing Reason

Assistant Collector cancelled mutation entry without notice and without challenging the sale deed.

Previous Decisions

Assistant Collector's order dated 24.12.1990 cancelled mutation entry No.8930 and directed restoration of land to Government.

Issues

Whether the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to cancel mutation entry without notice to the petitioners? Whether the sale deed executed by the trust could be collaterally challenged in mutation proceedings?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they purchased land after obtaining permission from Charity Commissioner and became owners by registered sale deed. Petitioners contended that the Assistant Collector passed the order without issuing any notice to them. Respondents argued that the mutation entry was rightly cancelled.

Ratio Decidendi

The Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to cancel mutation entry No.8930 without issuing notice to the petitioners and without challenging the validity of the registered sale deed. Mutation entries do not confer title and cannot be cancelled in a collateral proceeding without proper notice.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition, the petitioners impugn order dated 24.12.1990, rendered by the learned Assistant Collector, Jalgaon, whereby mutation entry No.8930 regarding the land bearing S.No.50 situated at Bhusawal was cancelled and the land was directed to be restored to the Government. The petitioners allege that after obtaining due permission of the Charity Commissioner, they purchased the land in question by virtue of a registered sale deed executed by the Archak and trustee of Public Trust called 'Shriram Mandir Sansthan, Bhusawal'.

Procedural History

The Assistant Collector passed order on 24.12.1990 cancelling mutation entry No.8930. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.794 of 1991 in the Bombay High Court challenging that order. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 19.01.2010.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased. Held that where the deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by a third party, the insurer of ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Electricity Theft Assessment Orders — Lack of Proper Hearing and Violation of Natural Justice. Assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 set aside due to failure to provide adequate op...