Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vyankatesh s/o Ramaswami Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 1/3/2011 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Nagpur, which rejected his application under Section 232(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The application sought to set aside an earlier order dated 19/7/2010 directing mutation in favour of respondent no.3, Pramod s/o Chotmal Chordiya. The petitioner contended that the order dated 19/7/2010 was passed ex parte without serving notice on him, as the address used in the revenue proceedings (Mansar, Taluq Ramtek) was incorrect, whereas his correct address was Bela, Tahsil Umred. He alleged that respondent no.3 deliberately gave the wrong address to avoid service. The petitioner also pointed out that in a related civil suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 34/2006) filed by respondent no.3, his correct address was mentioned. The High Court observed that the order dated 19/7/2010 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which violated principles of natural justice. The court set aside both the order dated 19/7/2010 and the impugned order dated 1/3/2011, and remanded the matter to the District Superintendent of Land Records for fresh hearing after issuing notice to all parties. The writ petition was allowed. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Mutation Entry - Ex Parte Order - Section 232(3) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Petitioner challenged mutation order passed without notice - Court held that the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, violating principles of natural justice - Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing after notice to all parties (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 19/7/2010 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records directing mutation in favour of respondent no.3 without serving notice on the petitioner is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19/7/2010 and the impugned order dated 1/3/2011 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Superintendent of Land Records, Nagpur for fresh hearing after issuing notice to all parties. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Ex parte order
- Service of notice
- Mutation entry
- Section 232 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 129
Writ Petition No.1935 of 2011
Ms. S. Tapadiya for petitioner, Mrs. A.R. Taiwade for respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri A. Balpande for respondent no.3
Vyankatesh s/o Ramaswami Reddy
1) The learned District Superintendent of Land Records, Nagpur, 2) Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Umred, 3) Pramod s/o Chotmal Chordiya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of application under Section 232(3) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to set aside ex parte mutation order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of order dated 1/3/2011 rejecting his application and order dated 19/7/2010 directing mutation in favour of respondent no.3.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that mutation order was passed without serving notice on him due to incorrect address given by respondent no.3.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 19/7/2010 by District Superintendent of Land Records directing mutation in favour of respondent no.3; order dated 1/3/2011 rejecting petitioner's application under Section 232(3) to set aside the earlier order.
Issues
Whether the order dated 19/7/2010 was passed without proper notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice.
Whether the District Superintendent of Land Records erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 232(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the address in revenue proceedings was deliberately incorrect to avoid service, while his correct address was used in civil suit.
Respondent no.3 contended that notice was properly served.
Ratio Decidendi
An order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected party violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. The court must ensure proper service of notice before passing any order affecting rights of parties.
Judgment Excerpts
The order impugned in the above petition is the order dated 1/3/2011 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records whereby the Application filed by the petitioner invoking Section 232 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for setting aside the order dated 19/7/2010 came to be rejected.
It is the case of the petitioner that the District Superintendent of Land Records, Nagpur, i.e. respondent no.1 herein without calling for the service report, proceeded to hear the proceedings filed by the respondent no.3 herein and passed the order dated 19/7/2010 directing mutation to be effected in favour of the respondent no.3.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under Section 232(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the District Superintendent of Land Records, Nagpur to set aside the ex parte mutation order dated 19/7/2010. The application was rejected on 1/3/2011. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 232, 232(3)
