Bombay High CourtWP/736/2016disposed off

Datwani Hotels Private Limited v. State Of Maharashtra And 11 ORS

2016-07-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.C. Gupte2 pages

Chittewan 1/2

1. wp 736-16.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.736 OF 2016 Datwani Hotels Private Limited ...

Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra And Others ...

Respondents .....

Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b Mr. Ajay Yadav for the Petitioner. Ms. Harbans Kaur i/b M/s K.P. Tiwari & Co., for Respondent No.12. .....

CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATE : 7 JULY 2016.

P.C. :

When Rule was issued in the Petition, this Court had made detailed observations as to why the impugned order of Minister of Revenue passed on a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966 was unsustainable, though the observations were termed as 'prima facie', since the matter was not fully heard. Today when the matter is called out, there is no new or further submission advanced on the point. Accordingly, this Court confirms the observations as reasons for allowing the Writ Petition.

Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent simply seeks to reserve liberty to challenge the conveyance executed in favour of the Petitioner in appropriate civil proceedings and as also assert their right, title and interest in the property by virtue of the conveyance executed in their favour by legal heirs of the original owner.

Chittewan 2/2

1. wp 736-16.doc Rule is accordingly made absolute and the impugned order of Minister of Revenue passed on a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966, is quashed and set aside with liberty to Respondent No.12 to challenge the conveyance executed by the original land holder, namely, Maarcus D'Souza, in favour of the Petitioner and also assert right, title and interest of Respondent No.12 through the conveyance executed by legal heirs of Marcus D'Souza.

All rights and contentions of parties on merits in so far as issues on merits in any such challenge are concerned, including the Petitioner's contention that the conveyance executed in favour of Respondent No.12 was not duly lodged for registration and cannot be registered, are kept open.

(S.C.GUPTE, J.)