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

..... Court against the mutation. It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other, nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally, the mutation is recorded on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes of collecting revenue - In the present case, it is found that a disputed question of fact was raised by the parties with regard to the title over the land in question. The Appellant-Corporation on the one hand based its claim of title on payment of amount by depositing it in the court and possession of the land taken pursuant to the agreement reached between the Appellant-Corporation and the father of the Respondent No. 2. In view of the fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t) and subsequently was acquired for the purpose of "Washery" by the Appellant-Corporation through private negotiations and the possession of the said land was handed over by the original owner-Bhimsingh (father of Respondent No. 2) on 01.08.1985. Thereafter, the said original owner being a protected tenant under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act(hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), applied for post-facto permission under Section 50B of the said Act, from the competent authority for alienation of the land in favour of the Appellant-Corporation. Accordingly, the competent authority duly granted post-facto sanction vide its order dated 16.01.1986. 2.2 Just before the acquisition of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on or the procedure thereof. 2.4 After hearing the parties, the High Court by an interim order dated 06.12.1989 directed the Appellant-Corporation to deposit ₹ 2,85,100/- (the amount which was agreed as compensation between the parties towards the area admeasuring 15881 sq. mtrs. acquired for Dhobi Ghat). The original owner thereafter, filed Civil Application No. 4658/1994 in the said writ petition No. 1832/89, seeking withdrawal of said compensation by reaffirming that the land was acquired for Dhobi Ghat and D.P. Roads. 2.5 The High Court after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition by observing that, once the land was acquired by private negotiations and rate of compensation was agreed, the Petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owners of Washery (Dhobi Ghat) land admeasuring 15881 sq. mtrs. The Respondent No. 2 challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was dismissed on 10.04.2007. The Respondent No. 2 challenged the said order by preferring second appeal before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad which was also dismissed on 5.8.2009. The Respondent No. 2 challenged the said order again by filing Revision Petition which was also dismissed on 05.06.2010. Having lost before all the Revenue Authorities, the Respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 10512 of 2010 before the High Court and in the garb of challenging the mutation entry, attempted to challenge the process of acquisition and compensation which had attained final .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the Appellant-Corporation. This was opposed by the Respondent No. 2 who had not been granted relief by the competent authorities at the different stages. Therefore, he moved before the High Court against the mutation. The High Court while allowing the writ petition doubted the title of the Appellant-Corporation and made the following observations: "Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/Corporation then argued that assuming that the Petitioner has claimed for title, he ought to have filed suit and ought to have got suitable declaration in his favour. He suggested that the order of Revenue Authorities directing mutation in absence of declaratory decree is not tenable. In any case, he suggested that such entry did not give titl .....

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