Neeta Pramod Bhansali v. State Of Maha., Through Its Secretary, Revenue Dept., Mumbai And Others

1502wp6176.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6176 OF 2015 Neeta Pramod Bhansali Vs. State of Maharashtra Rev. Deptt. Mumbai & Ors.

........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri Tembhare AGP for respondent.

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A. S. CHANDURKAR JJ.

DATED: 15th FEBRUARY, 2016.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication/order of the Superintendent of Land Records directing the petitioner to secure the no objection certificate from the Revenue Authority before mutation of his name in the Revenue Records.

On a perusal of the writ petition and on hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents it appears that there is no merit in the writ petition and the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records was justified in directing the petitioner to produce the no objection certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer before applying for mutation. The petitioner

1502wp6176.15 claims to have purchased the Nazul Land by the registered sale deed dated 17.03.2015. By the amended provisions of Section 37 A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, prior permission of the State Government would be necessary for effecting sale, transfer, or re-development of the land. According to the provisions of Section 37 A, which are brought into effect on 03.03.2015 permission could be granted for sale of the land on recovery of premium or charge. Since the petitioner has purchased the plot-land after the provisions of Section 37 A of the Land Revenue Code were brought into force, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records was justified in directing the petitioner to produce the no objection certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer before mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE svk