9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the revenue authority can examine breach of other provisions of relevant laws while recording mutation. Analysis: 1. The Court deliberated on the issue of whether the revenue authority, during mutation recording, can assess breaches of other laws and the appropriate course of action in such cases. The case involved a land dispute where objections were raised against a recorded entry, leading to a series of appeals and revisions before different authorities. 2. The petitioner argued that the revenue authority, under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, cannot scrutinize other enactments like the Prevention of Fragmentation Act or the Tenancy Act. The Court referenced previous judgments to assert that the revenue authority's jurisdiction is limited to the provisions of the Code and should refer matters involving other enactments to the respective empowered authorities. 3. The Court emphasized that while revenue entries are primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer property rights, the authority cannot ignore violations of other laws during mutation recording. It suggested a balanced approach where, if a transfer appears to breach other enactments, the revenue authority should record the entry with qualifications and refer the matter to the competent authority under the respective enactment. 4. Consequently, the Court concluded that the orders of the authorities were not baseless, but modifications were necessary. It directed the Mamlatdar to reconsider the matter in line with the Court's observations, giving both parties a hearing. The Mamlatdar was instructed to make a decision within six months while maintaining status quo on the revenue record. 5. The judgment partially allowed the petition, modifying the orders of the authorities and emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. No costs were awarded, and direct service was permitted in the case.
|
