- Case
- MORESHWAR S/O ANANDRAO SAWARKAR AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHA., THR. THE COLLECTOR, NAGPUR AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 18-03-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, Principles of Natural Justice.
Facts: The petitioners, Moreshwar and Pitamber, purchased properties in Mouza-Bhendala from Ramdas Nagpure via registered sale deeds and their names were mutated in the 7/12 extract. Subsequently, the Naib Tahsildar, based on a precept from a Civil Court decree in a partition suit (where the petitioners were not parties), deleted the petitioners' names from the 7/12 extract without providing them any notice or opportunity of being heard.
Procedural Posture: Aggrieved by the Naib Tahsildar's order, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, challenging the deletion of their names from the revenue records.
Issue: Whether the Naib Tahsildar's order deleting the petitioners' names from the 7/12 extract without providing them notice or an opportunity to be heard is valid, especially when the deletion was based on a Civil Court decree in a suit where the petitioners were not parties.
Holding: No, the Naib Tahsildar's order is invalid and is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
Reasoning: The Court found that the Naib Tahsildar violated the principles of natural justice, specifically Audi Alteram Partem, by deleting the petitioners' names without notice or a hearing. The Court emphasized that Section 227 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLR Code") empowers revenue officers to summon any person for inquiry purposes. Furthermore, Section 85 of the MLR Code mandates that the Collector must give notice to co-holders before partitioning shares based on a Civil Court decree. The Court directed the Naib Tahsildar to restore the original entry in the revenue record and 7/12 extract and conduct a fresh inquiry, granting the petitioners and any interested party an opportunity to be heard. The Court also cited Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Kusum Dashrath Kharmare Vs. Popat Madhav Gangarde and others, 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 267 in support of its decision.
