Pradip Mulchand Bhansali v. State Of Maha., Through Its Secretary, Revenue Dept., Mumbai And Others

wp5974.15 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5974 OF 2015 Pradip Mulchand Bhansali -vsThe State of Maharashtra, thr.its Secretary, Revenue Department and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ None for the petitioner.

Mr. K.Joshi, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 01.02.2016.

None appeared for the petitioner on 18/01/2016 and none appears for the petitioner even today.

However, with the assistance of Mrs. K. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents we have perused the writ petition and the prayers made therein.

The petitioner has challenged the communication dated 21/07/2015 issued by the respondent No.2 refusing to mutate the name of the petitioner as owner of the property in question. According to the petitioner, by sale deed dated 14/05/2015, Nazul Plot No.2, Sheet No.22, village Paratwada, Taluka Achalpur, District Amravati came to be purchased by him. On the application seeking mutation of his name in the records, the impugned communication came to be issued on the ground that there was no valid permission obtained from the Competent Authority.

Under provisions of Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 that have come into force with effect from 03/03/2015, every sale or transfer of property is required to be effected after obtaining a no objection certificate from the Sub-

wp5974.15 2/2 Divisional Officer. In the present case the sale deed is dated 14/05/2015, which is after the date when aforesaid provisions came into force. Hence, in that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned communication by which the petitioner was called upon to furnish a no objection certificate.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE