Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Manikchand Hiralal Nahar and his two sons, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Collector, Beed, which set aside mutation entry No.735. The mutation entry pertained to partition and allotment of portions of land admeasuring 3 Hectres 7 R situated in Gat No.168 at village Kanhapur, Taluka Wadwani, District Beed, among the petitioners who are members of an erstwhile undivided Hindu family. Respondent No.4, Bharat Abhimanyu Jagtap, who had no relation or concern with the property, objected to the mutation entry. The dispute arose because petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4 had applied for allotment of a petrol pump, and petitioner No.2 submitted the mutation entry to show his title and interest in a portion of the land. The Additional Collector set aside the mutation entry, which the petitioners challenged. The High Court observed that respondent No.4 had no locus standi to object to the mutation entry as he was a third party with no interest in the property. The court also noted that the Additional Collector's order was contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench in Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra [2003(3) Mh.L.J. 1039] and the guidelines dated 10/05/2006 issued by the Director General of Registration and Stamps, State of Maharashtra. The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of the Additional Collector, and restored mutation entry No.735.
Headnote
A) Mutation Entry - Locus Standi - Third Party Objection - Third party having no concern with the property cannot claim right to be heard before carrying out mutation entries regarding partition and allotment of portions of land interse family members of an erstwhile undivided Hindu family - Held that such third party has no locus standi to oppose mutation entry (Paras 3-4). B) Mutation Entry - Guidelines of Director General of Registration and Stamps - Violation - Additional Collector set aside mutation entry in opposition to law laid down in Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra [2003(3) Mh.L.J. 1039] and guidelines dated 10/05/2006 issued by Director General of Registration and Stamps, State of Maharashtra - Held that the order of Additional Collector is unsustainable (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a third party, having no concern with the property, can claim a right to be heard before carrying out mutation entries regarding partition and allotment of portions of land interse the family members of an erstwhile undivided Hindu family.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/09/2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Beed is quashed and set aside. Mutation entry No.735 is restored. Rule is made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- Mutation entry
- partition of Hindu Undivided Family
- locus standi
- third party objection
- guidelines of Director General of Registration and Stamps
- Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande case
