1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 567 of 2009 Shri Navalkishore and ors v. The State and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.L. Khapre, Advocate for petitioners. Mr D.P. Thakare, AGP for respondents. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 3rd March 2009 1. Heard Mr R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr D.P. Thakare, learned AGP for respondents. 2. Petitioners were members of joint Hindu family which owned various properties in the Districts of Akola, Raigad and Mumbai. It is contended that petitioners are legal heirs of late Chimanlalji Ramprasadji Bhartia who expired on 3.1.2008. It is submitted that there was oral partition of the joint family property effected on 11.6.2008 and the respective coparceners were placed in possession of the properties allotted to their share 2 in the partition. 2. It is contended that the petitioners have submitted applications before respondents no. 2 to 7 for effecting mutation entry in revenue record/Nazul record in relation to the properties falling within their respective jurisdiction on the basis of oral partition effected by and between the petitioners. Respondents no. 2 to 7 are not effecting mutation entries on the ground that memorandum of partition is not registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and ors reported in 2004 (2) Bom. C.R. 331). This Court, relying on ratio laid down by the Apex Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel reported in AIR 1965 SC 866 and Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil & anr reported in AIR 1995 SC 1728, observed thus : “In view of above referred decisions of the Apex Court, it is clear that the property received by the coparcener in the partition of joint Hindu family property is not a transfer and, therefore, registration of transfer deed is not necessary. We direct the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner for mutation according 3 to law, without insisting on registration of the document. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.” 4. It is, therefore, contended that respondents may be directed to pass order on the applications submitted by the petitioners for mutation accordingly. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute factual and legal aspects of the matter and has submitted that so far as mutations required to be effected by respondents no. 1 to 4 are concerned, appropriate steps will be taken in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today. He submits that respondents no. 5 to 7 have their offices at Pune, Raigarh and Mumbai – outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for petitioners does not dispute this position and seeks permission to withdraw the petition as far as reliefs sought against respondents no. 5 to 7 are concerned with liberty to take up appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. 6. In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn as against respondents no. 5 to 7 with liberty, as prayed for, whereas petition is disposed of in view of the statement made by learned Asst. Government Pleader so far as 4 the grievance of the petitioners relating to respondents no. 1 to 4 is concerned. Judge. Judge. hsj