1 LPA261/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.261 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7989 OF 2008 Harshad P. Doshi, since deceased through his legal heir Smt Madhu Doshi, through her power of attorney holder Shri Dilesh Shah ...Appellant v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr Rafiq Dada, Sr. Counsel i/b Mr K.S. Dewal for Appellant. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr N.H. Seerwai, Sr. Counsel with Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.252 OF 2011 2 LPA261/11 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6994 OF 2008 Shri Haresh J. Patil and others ...Appellants v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr P.S. Dani i/b Mr R.J. Suryawanshi for Appellants. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel with Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.255 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7988 OF 2008 Harshad P. Doshim since deceased through his legal heir Smt Madhu Doshi, through her Power of Attorney holder Shri Dilesh Shah ...Appellant 3 LPA261/11 v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr K.S. Dewal for Appellant. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr N.H. Seerwai, Sr. Counsel with Mr Vineet Naik and Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.256 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7990 OF 2008 Harshad P. Doshi, since deceased through his legal heir Smt Madhu Doshi, through her Power of Attorney holder Shri Dilesh Shah ...Appellant v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr K.S. Dewal for Appellant. 4 LPA261/11 Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.257 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7490 OF 2008 R.N.A. Builders ...Appellants v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr K.S. Dewal for Appellants. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel with Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.258 OF 2011 IN 5 LPA261/11 WRIT PETITION NO.7496 OF 2008 Philip J. Rebellow and others ...Appellants v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr K.S. Dewal for Appellants Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr N.H. Seerwai, Sr. Counsel with Mr Vineet Naik and Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.259 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITIION NO.7487 OF 2008 Mr Suresh D. Shah and others ...Appellants v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr K.S. Dewal for Appellants. 6 LPA261/11 Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel with Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.260 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7488 OF 2008 Simon Lopez ...Appellant v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr K.S. Dewal for Appellant. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.262 OF 2011 IN 7 LPA261/11 WRIT PETITION NO.7489 OF 2008 Trisa John Mendonsa and others ...Appellants v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr K.S. Dewal for Appellants. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms S. Dasgupta i/b M/s Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- 1] By this appeal, the petitioners challenge a common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14th/15th July 2011 in several petitions. By those petitions, the petitioners had challenged entries taken in the revenue record and record of rights in relation to certain lands by the Collector, Thane. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain those petitions by an elaborate and detailed order. In substance, the 8 LPA261/11 learned Single Judge has held that the order of the Collector, Thane which was impugned before the learned Single Judge relates to taking of entries in revenue record in relation to lands. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge were objecting to alteration in the entries in the revenue record on the ground that the petitioners have right in the land. The learned Single Judge has held that the settled law is that the only Court competent to declare title and rights in property is the Civil Court. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is to institute a civil suit in the Civil Court claiming appropriate declaration of title of the petitioners in relation to the land. Nothing said in the order impugned before the learned Single Judge would be binding on the Civil Court. The Civil Court would be holding enquiry into the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the material produced before the Civil Court. In case the Civil Court passes decree in favour of the petitioners, the Collector and other revenue authorities will have to take entries in the revenue 9 LPA261/11 record in accordance with the decree passed by the Civil Court. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. According to the learned counsel, because of the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, if the petitioners have to apply for permission to use the land for non-agricultural purpose, because of the entry made pursuant to the order of the Collector, Thane, they will have to seek permission of the respondents who have been recorded as superior holders of the land. The learned counsel also submitted that the Collector, Thane under the provisions of Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act 1951 does not have jurisdiction to make the order. In our opinion, the petitioners are claiming right in land and they are denying that the respondents have any right in that land. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has therefore rightly held that the appropriate forum of the petitioners is the Civil Court. What is pertinent to note here is that the Collector in his order has also observed that the order made by the Collector will not come in the way of the parties 10 LPA261/11 who are claiming interest in the land either as owner or tenant to establish their title by approaching appropriate Court. In our opinion, as the question of title to land is involved, the appropriate forum as held by the learned Single Judge is Civil Court. The appeals therefore cannot be entertained, they are disposed off. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for appellants, operation of the interim order, which is presently operating qua the appellants, is continued for a period of eight weeks from today. All civil applications in the aforesaid letters patent appeals stand disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )