Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tarachand Goel, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29-04-2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, which rejected his appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and confirmed the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector granting the application of respondent no.1 under Section 85 of the Code for partition/correction of record of rights. The petitioner had filed Special Civil Suit No.3 of 2013 seeking a declaration that a Sale Deed dated 16-06-2012 executed in favour of respondent no.1 was not binding on him and for permanent injunction. The suit property was 1.58 acres and 2.57 acres of land in mouza Mul, District Chandrapur, purchased by the petitioner and his cousin Ramkumar by registered Sale Deed dated 08-06-1959 and jointly owned. The petitioner argued that the revenue proceedings were not maintainable in view of the prior civil suit. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector, and Additional Commissioner concurrently rejected this objection and granted the application. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, held that the remedy under Section 85 of the Code is summary in nature and the revenue authorities have concurrent jurisdiction to decide mutation entries. The pendency of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities under Section 85. The Court found no perversity or illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the revenue authorities.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Partition/Correction of Record of Rights - Section 85 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Maintainability Despite Civil Suit - The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner confirming the grant of application under Section 85 by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector, contending that the revenue proceedings were not maintainable due to a prior civil suit. The Court held that the remedy under Section 85 is summary in nature and the revenue authorities have concurrent jurisdiction to decide mutation entries, and the pendency of a civil suit does not bar such proceedings. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether proceedings under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for partition/correction of record of rights are maintainable when a civil suit concerning the same property is already pending.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The impugned order dated 29-04-2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 85 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966 provides a summary remedy for partition/correction of record of rights
- maintainable despite pendency of civil suit
- Revenue authorities have concurrent jurisdiction to decide mutation entries
- Civil suit does not oust jurisdiction under Section 85.
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (09) 95
Writ Petition No.776 of 2016
Shri N.R. Bhishikar for petitioner, Shri A.S. Kilor for respondent no.1
Tarachand s/o Lalchand Goel
Santoshsingh s/o Chandansingh Rawat, Ramkumar s/o Ghasiram Goyal, Naresh s/o Dharamsingh Goyal, Sub Divisional Officer, Mul
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Additional Commissioner rejecting appeal under Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and confirming orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector granting application under Section 85 for partition/correction of record of rights.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 29-04-2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner and dismissal of the application under Section 85.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that revenue proceedings under Section 85 were not maintainable due to a prior civil suit filed by him concerning the same property.
Previous Decisions
Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector granted the application under Section 85; Additional Commissioner rejected petitioner's appeal under Section 247 and confirmed those orders.
Issues
Whether proceedings under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 are maintainable when a civil suit concerning the same property is pending.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the revenue proceedings under Section 85 were not maintainable in view of the prior civil suit filed by him.
Respondent no.1 supported the impugned order, contending that the remedy under Section 85 is summary and independent of the civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The remedy under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is summary in nature and the revenue authorities have concurrent jurisdiction to decide mutation entries. The pendency of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities under Section 85.
Judgment Excerpts
The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner herein is that the proceedings initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer for partition/correction of record of rights under Section 85 of the Code by the respondent no.1 herein was not maintainable in view of a civil suit filed by the petitioner prior in point of time concerning the property in question.
The remedy under Section 85 of the Code is summary in nature and the revenue authorities have concurrent jurisdiction to decide mutation entries. The pendency of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities under Section 85.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No.3 of 2013. Respondent no.1 filed application under Section 85 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Mul. Sub-Divisional Officer granted the application. Petitioner appealed to Additional Collector, who confirmed the order. Petitioner then appealed to Additional Commissioner under Section 247, who rejected the appeal on 29-04-2015. Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 85, 247
