1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9055 OF 2010 Prakashkumar Hamirmalji Jain Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.Sandesh Patil a/w Harish Jain for petitioner. Ms.Sheetal Shah i/by M/s.Mehta & Girdharlal for respondent no.4. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 22ndDecember 2010 PC : 1. Rule. Learned AGP appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent no.4 waives service. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks directions against respondent no.2-the Collector, Thane to consider the application dated 3rd July 2010 filed by the petitioner in respect of the land bearing Old Survey No.567, New Survey No.267, Hissa No.2/4, admeasuring 6437.2 sq. yards equivalent to 5320 sq.meters situate at Village Bhayandar (West), District Thane (the suit property) by following the procedure laid down under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 3. According to the petitioner, originally one Shri Gajanan Bhau Mhatre and 12 others were the owners of the suit property. The said Gajanan Bhau Mhatre with the consent of all the members of Joint Hindu Undivided Family agreed to sell, transfer and assign all his rights, title and 2 interests in the suit property to the petitioner vide Agreement for Development-cum-Sale dated 8th April 1996 for the valuable consideration of Rs.21,05,400/- and on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Thereafter the said Gajanan Bhau Mhatre and 12 others sold the suit property to the petitioner vide Deed of Conveyance dated 18th June 2009 duly registered with the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Thane-4 under Sr.No.TNN4-04697 of 2009 for a sum of Rs. 21,05,400/-. Hence, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the vendors as the owners of the suit property. 4. The respondent no.4 i.e. the Estate Investment Company Pvt.Ltd. claimed that the Secretary of the State for Indian Council had executed a Deed of Indenture dated 7th November 1870 in favour of one Ramchandur Lusumonjee thereby entrusting the grantee the responsibility of maintenance of the lands of the entire villages Bhayander, Mire and Ghodbandar situate in the Taluka and District of Thane. The said indenture contemplated granting of lease of 999 years. Thereafter by the Deed of Assignments dated 15th February 1943 and 22nd March 1945, the respondent no.4 claimed to have acquired the said lands, hereaditament and premises. 5. According to the petitioner, in the year 1954, the mutation entries were effected bearing Mutation Entry No.939 of 1954 of Bhayandar, Mutation Entry No.332 of 1954 of Ghodbander and Mutation Entry No.350 of 1954 of Mira. The names of respondent no.4 were removed from the Kabjedar column of record of rights and entered in other rights column. The respondent no.4 took out several proceedings impugning the said action and by an order dated 5th September 2008, the respondent no.2 (District Collector, Thane) passed an order whereby the claim of respondent no.4 company was accepted in toto and its name was inserted in the Kabjedar column of Village Form No.VII/XII. 6. The order passed by the respondent no.2-District Collector, Thane 3 dated 5th September 2008 was challenged by number of villagers by filing various writ petitions before this Court under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the same are pending. In the said writ petitions, the petitioners therein claimed that they are the owners of the respective plots and the respondent no.4 cannot claim to be the owner of the same. During pendency of these writ petitions, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed orders dated 14th October 2008, 21st October 2008 and 24th April 2009 directing the parties concerned to maintain status-quo in respect of the revenue records of the entire property. 7. According to the petitioner, taking into consideration the nature of the issue involved in various writ petitions filed before this Court and further taking into consideration the voluminous record of the case and that it would take substantial time for the matter to be decided on merits, the petitioner decided to amicably settle the matter with the respondent no.4. The petitioner, therefore, recognized/accepted the rights of the respondent no.4 and accordingly decided to purchase the same. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 executed a Deed of Release dated 11th June 2010 in favour of the petitioner upon payment of Rs.30.00 lakhs by the petitioner to the respondent no.4 company being consideration of the suit lands. The respondent no.4 thus has released all its rights, title and interests in the suit property in favour of the petitioner and also issued a no objection letter dated 11th June 2010 thereby giving no objection for the suit property being converted for non agricultural use and N.A. permission being granted to the petitioner by the respondent no.2- Collector, Thane and for various other permissions as are required by the Local Authorities, Municipal Corporation or the State of Maharashtra. 8. The petitioner by his application dated 30th June 2010 approached the respondent no.3 for changing the name in the record of rights under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as the petitioner has obtained all rights, title and interests in the suit land vide Deed of Conveyance dated 18th June 2009 and Deed of Release dated 11th June 4 2010. However, the petitioner did not receive any response from the respondent no.2. The petitioner also made an application before the respondent no.2-Collector, Thane to grant permission for conversion of the suit property for non agricultural purposes. However, since the petitioner had not annexed the relevant documents i.e. the Release Deed dated 11th June 2010 and copy of No Objection Certificate dated 11th June 2010, the Collector, Thane had refused to entertain the application of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore once again filed an application dated 3rd July 2010 along with the said Release Deed and the No Objection Certificate, both dated 11th June 2010. However, the respondent no.2-Collector, Thane by his order dated 8th July 2010 refused to entertain the application filed by the petitioner seeking conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes on the ground that the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 5th September 2008 in favour of the respondent no.4 is challenged in various writ petitions in this High Court and that this Court has passed order on 14th October 2008 directing the respondents to maintain status-quo on the suit property. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition impugning the refusal on the part of respondent no.2-District Collector, Thane to grant permission for conversion of the suit property for non agricultural purposes. 9. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has therefore submitted that after obtaining the Release Deed in his favour and in the light of the Deed of Conveyance executed in his favour by the original owners, the petitioner has got absolute right, title and interest in the suit property and that the orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 are without application of mind. Even the respondent no.4 has given it's no objection for granting appropriate certificate to the petitioner. It is submitted that the orders dated 14.10.2008, 21.10.2008 and 24.4.2009 by this Court in the writ petitions mentioned above will not come in way of the petitioner, because in those cases before the learned Single Judge of this Court, the petitioners therein have impugned the order dated 5th 5 September 2009 which is passed by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 has therefore, contested the petitions and raised its objections. In the present case there is no reason for not granting appropriate permission because the respondent no.4 itself has given its consent in favour of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the respondent nos.2 and 3 cannot refuse to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by law. It is therefore submitted that the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition be granted in favour of the petitioner and the petition be allowed. 10. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4 (Estate Investment Company Pvt.Ltd.) (respondent no.3 in the earlier writ petitions) has supported the case of the petitioner and has submitted that the respondent no.4 has no objection if the writ petition is allowed in terms of the prayers sought by the petitioner. The learned AGP appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submits to the orders of the Court. 11. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The earlier writ petitions are filed by various petitioners challenging the claim of the respondent no.4 herein (respondent no.3 therein) that they are the owners of the entire villages Bhayander, Mira and Ghodbandar. The claim was upheld by the respondent no.2 by his order dated 5th September 2008. The petitioner too has earlier joined issue with the respondent no.3 qua the claim of the respondent no.3 that they are the owners of all the lands in the said villages including the suit property. Under the circumstances, this Court passed orders dated 14.10.2008, 21.10.2008 and 24.4.2009 directing the parties to maintain status-quo. However, now that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 pertaining to the suit property is settled and the Release Deed dated 11th June 2010 has been executed by and between the respondent no.3 and the petitioner whereunder the respondent no.3 has released all its rights, title and interests in the suit property in favour of the petitioner and further issued a no objection certificate dated 11th June 6 2010 to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to have the said property transferred in his name and to also apply for N.A.permission. The same cannot be refused by the respondent no.2 on the ground that this Court has by its orders dated 14.10.2008, 21.10.2008 and 24.4.2009 directed the parties to maintain status-quo. 12. In view thereof, we direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider the applications dated 3rd July 2010 and 30th June 2010 filed by the petitioner in respect of the suit property by following the procedure as laid down under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as expeditiously as possible but not later than 31st March 2011. The rule is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)