Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1183 (BOM)

Sau. Vanita v. State of Maharashtra

2016-07-13

SWAPNA JOSHI, VASANTI A.NAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Swapna Joshi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the communication of the respondent No.3, dated 14.12.2015 demanding 'No Objection Certificate' from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur before recording the mutation entry. 3. The petitioners purchased a plot of land from their vendor by a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2013. After purchasing the property on 13.02.2013, by an application dated 16.01.2015, the petitioners applied to the concerned authorities under the provisions of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for mutating their name in the revenue records. By the impugned order, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records directed the petitioners to produce a No Objection Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur. The petitioners have impugned the said order in the instant petition. 4. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records has no authority to seek the No Objection Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur before mutating the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. It is stated that when such No Objection Certificates were sought by the authorities, this Court had set aside the said orders on the ground that the authorities did not have the jurisdiction to do so. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on some unreported judgments and orders of this Court to substantiate his submission. It is further stated that the State Government cannot rely on the provisions of Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as they were brought into effect after the petitioners had purchased the property by the registered sale deed, on 13.02.2013. 5. Shri Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records had probably sought the No Objection Certificate on the basis of the amended provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It is stated that such a certificate would be necessary in respect of the sale deeds executed after the amended provisions were brought on the statute book. It is submitted that Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was brought into effect on 03.03.2015 and the petitioners appear to have purchased the property on 13.02.2013. It is stated that such a certificate would be necessary in respect of the sale deeds executed after the amended provisions were brought on the statute book. It is submitted that Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was brought into effect on 03.03.2015 and the petitioners appear to have purchased the property on 13.02.2013. It is stated that in view of the proviso to Section 37A, the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 37A would not apply to the sale, transfer or redevelopment of the property effected before 03.03.2015. It is stated that the proviso stipulates that the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 37A are not retrospective. It is fairly stated that since the petitioners had purchased the land by a registered sale deed on 13.02.2013, the provisions of Section 37A of the Code may not apply to the petitioners. 6. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the provisions of Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, it appears that the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records was not justified in refusing to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue records for not producing the No Objection Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur. It is clear from the orders passed by this Court from time to time that the respondents had no authority in law to seek the No Objection Certificate. The provisions of Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are brought into effect from 03.03.2015 and since the provisions of Section 37A(1) are not retrospective in operation, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records could not have sought the No Objection Certificate when the petitioners had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2013. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.