1 WP Nos.11444/2010 & 4290/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11444 OF 2010 1) Sambhaji s/o Shakar Shandse, Age: 50 Yrs., occu. Agril. r/o Washi, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 2) Pandurang s/o Parasram Molawane Age: 65 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Washi, Tq. Washi, District Osmanabad. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) Shri Vasant s/o Navruti Sandase Age:70 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Washi, Tq. Washi, District Osmanabad. 2) The State of Maharashtra Through Dy. Director of Land records, Aurangabad. 3) The Superintendent of Land Records, Washi, Tq.Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 4) The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Washi, Tq. Washi, District Osmanabad. 5) A.U.Diggikar, Dy. Superintendent of Land Records, Washi, District Osmanabad. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PR Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.AL Tikle, Adv. For Respondent No.1. Mr.VH Dighe, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4; Respondent No.5 served. 2 WP Nos.11444/2010 & 4290/11 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4290 OF 2011. Jagdish s/o Mohanrao Saswade Age: 53 Yrs., occu. Business, r/o Ieet, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad, through General Power of Attorney - Deepak s/o Mohanrao Saswade, Age: 45 Yrs., occu. Business, R/o Ieet, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. = PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad. 3) The Dy.Director of Land Records, Aurangabad. 4) Vasant s/o Nivruti Sandse, Age: 65 Yrs., occu. Agril. r/o Washi, Tq. Washi, District Osmanabad. 5) Sambhaji s/o Shankar Sandse, Age:50 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Washi, Tq. Washi, Dist.Osmanabad. 6) Pandurang s/o Parasram Molawane Age: 65 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Washi, Tq. Washi, District Osmanabad. 7) The Village Department Officer, Grampanchayat, Washi, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 8) The Taluka Inspector of Land 3 WP Nos.11444/2010 & 4290/11 Records, Washi, Tq. Washi, District Osmanabad. = RESPONDENTS Mr.VH Humbe, Advocate for petitioner; Mr.VH Dighe, AGP for Resp.Nos.1 to 3 & 8; Mr.AL Tikle, Adv. For Resp.No.4; Mr.PR Katneshwarkar, Adv. For Resp.Nos.5 & 6; ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2) Since both the writ petitions raise common question, heard together, disposed of by common order. 3) The Writ Petition questions order of learned Minister dated 28.10.2010, whereby he has disturbed the order dated 20th April, 2010, clause 3, of the Deputy Director of Land Records and the Learned Minister directed the parties to approach Civil Court for staking their claim. 4) House No.1761, situated at Vashi, Tq. Vashi, District Osmanabad was in the name of respondent – Vasant. Alleged partition deed dated 20th January, 1990 executed by Vasant in favour of petitioner – Sambhaji was flashed and put in acceleration to get the said property mutated and on 21.4.2003, the property was entered in the name of Sambhaji, the 4 WP Nos.11444/2010 & 4290/11 petitioner and also part of it was sold by Rambhaji to Pandurang by virtue of the sale-deed dated 7.5.2003 was also mutated by mutation entry No.238 of even date. The mutation entry was questioned, the matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Land Records. After several rounds litigation and learned Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad, by his order dated 20.4.2010, directed the petitioner Sambhaji to get the so-called partition-deed validated from the office of learned Registrar of Stamps and thereafter the Taluka Inspector of Land Records to initiate proceedings for effecting mutation. The petitioner complied with such directions and got the partition-deed validated on 4.5.2010. Based on such purported validation, the mutation was again effected on 13.5.2010 in the name and in favour of Sambhaji, the petitioner. This mutation is said not yet challenged anywhere. 5) Mr.Katneshwarkar submits that the order of learned Minister calls for interference as it has adversely affected the rights of the petitioner. He submits, since there is already validation of partition-deed, the mutation having been effected, there was no requirement to get the rights addressed or adjudicated upon in competent civil court. 6) Learned Counsel has given reference to civil suit filed by Vasant being RCS No. 238/2003 in which, Plaint was returned by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, by order dated 8th March, 2007. Same was questioned by Vasant before the learned District 5 WP Nos.11444/2010 & 4290/11 Judge. However, since there was delay, he moved Misc. Application No.107/2003, lost the same by order dated 29.9.2009. Consequently, it was questioned by way of a writ petition, being WP No. 8227/2009 and by order dated 8.12.2009, Vasant faced dismissal of the writ petition. 7) Mr.Katneshwarkar submits, since substantial rights sought by Vasant having been negated, the observation of learned Minister calls for interference. 8) Learned Counsel for respondent-Vasant in both the writ petitions, submits that dismissal of RCS No. 238/2003 was not on merits, it was rejection of plaint to be presented in proper Court. Care has been taken by subsequent purchaser Rajabhau Pawar having entered the property and filed the suit. Learned Counsel also invited my attention to a suit simplicitor filed by Sambhaji being RCS No.38/2010 before learned CJJD, Washi, wherein the petitioner, as plaintiff, could not succeed for getting injunction in his favour, injunction was refused. Learned Counsel read the observations of learned CJJD to stress his point about the rights based on the partition-deed. He reiterated, the purported partition deed cannot be read in evidence even for prima facie purposes, as it is not a memorandum, but informs to be a deed of partition. He submits, it is a fabricated document, created by petitioner – Sambhaji in collusion with his brother, who was member of Gram Panchayat at the relevant time. 6 WP Nos.11444/2010 & 4290/11 Learned Counsel submits, it is in this context, that two mutation entries bearing Nos.236 and 237, have taken place on a single day, i.e. on 4.2.2007. Learned Counsel submits that effecting of mutation entries Nos. 236 and 237 was illegal, questioned and the directions of the Deputy Director of Land Records was getting it validated, that does not mean to confer title upon the petitioner in respect of the disputed property. 9) The above facts, more or less, are not in disputed. The validation of the so-called partition- deed by learned Deputy Director of Land Records was indeed without any authority vested in him. The petitioner, acting on such directions and getting the document properly stamped, does not mean that it was registered. Registration is altogether different feature. Un-registered document of partition, which indeed is not a memorandum, will not confer in divesting title in favour of the petitioner Sambhaji. Mutation entry consequently was rightly challenged by Vasant in appropriate forum. Review Application moved by Vasant before the learned Minister even if is not entertained, however, requisite expectation of Vasant has been achieved as from the order of Deputy Director of Land Records, dated 20th April, 2010, clause 3 thereof, of getting the partition deed validated, has been turned down. The learned Minister has rightly directed both the parties to get their rights redressed in competent forum. I do not see any error on the part of the learned Minister in quashing the order of Deputy Director of Land Records 7 WP Nos.11444/2010 & 4290/11 dated 20.4.2010 and also asking the parties to seek redressal of proper forum. Both the writ petitions lack merit, dismissed. The order of status quo terminated. sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/