Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (2) TMI 1389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DGMENT 1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"' against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 10512 of 2010 with Civil Application No. 8801 of 2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the 2nd Respondent - Jaisingh s/o. Bhimsingh Pardeshi. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: 2.1 The dispute relates to land admeasuring 15881 sq. mtrs. out of Survey No. 12, Shahnoorwadi, Aurangabad. Initially, the said land was reserved for "Washery" (Dhobi Ghat) and subsequently was acquire .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acquired for 80 and 50 feet D.P. Road, stood paid, being adjusted against the betterment charges payable for sanctioning of the lay out for the remaining land out of Survey No. 12 (i.e. land out of Survey No. 12 excluding land acquired for Dhobi Ghat and 50 & 80 feet D.P. Road.). 2.3 The original owner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 1832/1989 before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and sought (a) enhancement of compensation for the land acquired for 50 and 80 feet D.P. Road and (b) compensation for land acquired for Dhobi Ghat. The said original owner accepted the parting of possession and factum of acquisition, hence did not raise any objection as regards to acquisition or the procedure thereof. 2.4 After hearing the par .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and stated that the land at Dhobi Ghat was taken by negotiation and the possession of the same was also taken. According to them no compensation was paid for the land acquired for Dhobi Ghat. The said review petition was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.01.2010. 2.7 In view of the change in development plan in the year 2006, the Appellant-Corporation proposed to construct a shopping complex on the land in question. The Appellant-Corporation accordingly sought mutation in revenue records for showing the Corporation as owner of the land. The Tahsildar, after considering the documents on record, directed mutation in the revenue records and placing the Appellant-Corporation as owners of Washery (Dhobi Ghat) land admeasuring 15881 sq. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... k as in the year 1989. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 the agreement reached at between the father of the Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant-Corporation was never given effect as enhanced compensation was not paid. The amount which has been deposited by the Appellant-Corporation is not in respect of the land in question and thus, title remains with the 2nd Respondent, though the Appellant-Corporation is in possession of the land. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. What we find in the present case is that the dispute relates to mutation; in the revenue record the land has been mutated and recorded in the name of the Appellant-Corporation. This was opposed by the Res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uant to the agreement reached between the Appellant-Corporation and the father of the Respondent No. 2. On the other hand, the case of the 2nd Respondent is that the amount was not deposited by the Appellant-Corporation with regard to the land in question. In view of the fact that there is a disputed question of fact, we are of the view that it was not a fit case for the High Court to decide the question of mutation doubting the title in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and thereby reversing the concurrent finding of fact by the competent authorities. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we set the aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates