Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertained to a batch of four writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The lead petition, WPL 122 of 2018, was filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited and its shareholder challenging the constitutional validity of an amendment to Section 295 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, introduced by the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2016, with retrospective effect from 1966. The petitioners also assailed a demand notice dated 26 December 2017 issued by the Collector of Mumbai City, demanding Rs. 94,24,81,005 as unearned income on the assignment of leasehold rights in a property in Mumbai. The other three writ petitions, WP 137 of 2017 (Glider Buildcon Realtors Private Limited), WP 111 of 2017 (Mangla Hospitality Limited), and WP 513 of 2017 (Arvind Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), raised similar challenges to the same amendment and related demands. The background facts, as narrated in the lead petition, were that on 29 December 2014, Hindustan Unilever Limited executed a registered Deed of Assignment assigning all its rights in the property to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC). The property was held under a lease, and the assignment was intimated to the Collector on the same day, with acknowledgment on 30 December 2014. About three months later, on 3 March 2015, the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was amended by inserting Section 37A, prospectively. Subsequently, on 24 November 2015, the petitioner requested mutation of the property card in HDFC's name. The Collector sought details, which were furnished. Meanwhile, on 22 August 2016, another amendment was notified—the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2016—adding a proviso to Section 295 with retrospective effect from 1966. Despite repeated correspondence, the Collector did not mutate the land or raise any demand until the impugned notice of 26 December 2017, demanding the unearned income amount. The petitioners contended that the retrospective amendment was unconstitutional, being ultra vires the State Legislature's competence and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). They sought a writ of mandamus to declare the amendment void, quash the demand notice, and direct mutation. The other petitions involved similar assignments and demands. The court heard the matters together, with multiple senior advocates appearing for the petitioners and the Advocate General for the State. Arguments were advanced on the vires of the amendment and the validity of the demands. The court reserved judgment on 7 February 2018 and pronounced it on 3 May 2018. The excerpt of the judgment provided only the initial portion detailing the facts and prayers; the court's reasoning, findings, and final orders were not included in the given text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment dated 22 August 2016 to Section 295 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and whether the demand notice dated 26 December 2017 for unearned income is valid.
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (05) 41
Writ Petition (L) No. 122 of 2018 with Notice of Motion No. 45 of 2018, along with Writ Petition No. 137 of 2017, Writ Petition No. 111 of 2017 with Notice of Motion No. 52 of 2018, and Writ Petition No. 513 of 2017 with Notice of Motion No. 469 of 2017 and Chamber Summons No. 248 of 2017
S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. and Smt. Bharati H. Dangre, J.
Virag Tulzapurkar, Birendra Saraf, Melvyn Fernandes, Amit Bhandari, Jineshkumar Gandhi, Nikita Panhalkar, Divyanka Kapoor, Rupen Kanawah, Milind Sathe, Nishit Dhurva, Malav Virani, Rohan Agrawal, Sanjay V. Kadam, Mayur Khandeparkar, Apeksha Sharma, Sanjeel Kadam, Sayalee Rajpurkar, Akshit Dhedia, Jasmine Kachalia, Rafique Dada, Prasad Dhakephalkar, Ashish Kamat, Aditya Mehta, M.S.Federal, Murtuza Federal, Namrata Shah, Anchal Rohira, Paulomi Mehta, Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Geeta Shastri, Abhay Patki, Uma Palsuledesai, Kedar Dighe
Hindustan Unilever Limited and Aditya Mudgal
The State of Maharashtra, The Collector Mumbai City, Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, Superintendent of Land Records
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Multiple writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment to Section 295 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the demand for unearned income on assignment of leasehold rights.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the amendment dated 22.08.2016 to Section 295 is illegal, ultra vires, and unconstitutional; quashing of the demand notice dated 26.12.2017; mandamus to withdraw/cancel the notice; mandamus to complete mutation in favour of HDFC; interim relief.
Filing Reason
Assignment of leasehold property by registered deed in December 2014, subsequent introduction of Section 37A in March 2015, retrospective amendment to Section 295 in August 2016, and a demand notice in December 2017 for unearned income, which the petitioners contended was illegal and violative of fundamental rights.
Issues
Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2016, amending Section 295 with retrospective effect from 1966, under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and legislative competence.
Legality of the demand notice dated 26.12.2017 for unearned income under Government Resolution dated ...
Whether the Collector must mutate the property in the name of the assignee without demanding unearned income after the amendment.
Judgment Excerpts
On December 29, 2014, the petitioner being fully entitled so to do, by way of registered Deed of Assignment dated December 29, 2014 registered at Serial No. BBE-5/4048/2014, assigned all its rights in the property in favour of the assignee HDFC (Respondent No.3).
On August 22, 2016 another amendment to the 1996 Code was notified called the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2016. By way of this amendment, Section 295 of the 1966 Code was purported to be amended with retrospective effect from 1966. By way of the amendment a proviso was added to the existing Section 295.
On December 26, 2017 for the first time the Respondent No.2 raised a demand by the impugned Notice dated December 26, 2017, which impugned Notice was received by the petitioner No.1 on December 29, 2017 calling upon the petitioner No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.94,24,81,005 (Rupees Ninety Four Crores Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Five only) as unearned income in respect of the assignment of the lease in favour of HDFC under Government Resolution No. GR 01/2014/PK.04/J-1 dated Februar...
Procedural History
The writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They were heard together by the Division Bench. Interim applications (Notices of Motion and Chamber Summons) were also filed and heard along with the main petitions. The court reserved judgment on 7 February 2018 and pronounced it on 3 May 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 37A, Section 295
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 226
