No need of No Objection Certificate from sub divisional officer for recording mutation entry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION No. 3060/2016

Sau. Vanita W/o Diwakar Shukla
Vs
State of Maharashtra,

CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE       : 13TH JULY,          2016.
Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR 809

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.

READ  Whether the family court has jurisdiction to decide the validity of marriage?

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 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.

READ  Working couple should jointly share kids’ responsibility after separation

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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *