KASHINATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Application filed by the petitioners, seeking to restrain respondent Nos.5 to 8 from alienating or creating third party interest in the disputed property i.e. final plot No.190B of Dhule till final disposal of the Writ Petition.

(2.) Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the applicants/ petitioners submits that the petitioners are impugning the order passed by respondent No.3 - City Survey Officer, Dhule on 17.05.2017, which is in the nature of a review, but which is not permissible since the earlier order, which was carried up to the Minister, had reached finality. He would submit that by virtue of the limitations prescribed by Section 258, respondent No.3 - City Survey Officer could not have exercised the jurisdiction. The petitioners' names were duly mutated in the property card of the disputed property pursuant to the quasi-judicial order passed by the learned Minister on 05.06.2013 and the impugned order has the effect of superseding the order passed by the Minister, which respondent No.3 could not have legally done. The learned Advocate then submits that while the petition is pending before this Court, the apprehension of the petitioners has turned out to be true inasmuch as one Advocate Shailesh Madanlal Pansariya has published a Public Notice in Daily 'Aapla Maharashtra', Dhule dated 03.10.2020, whereby it has been notified that his clients are to purchase the property in dispute in this petition from the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8. The learned Advocate would submit that such transfer of the disputed property during pendency of the Writ Petition is certain to complicate the issue and respondent Nos.5 to 8 may be restrained from creating third party interest.

(3.) Mr. B.R. Kedar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 8 submits that though the impugned order is being assailed on the ground that it is an order in purported exercise of powers of review, in fact, only an error is being sought to be corrected. He would point out that when the learned Minister had allowed the Revision preferred by the predecessor of the petitioners namely Dhondabai, the learned Minister had merely confirmed the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records, Dhule dated 21.09.2007. He would, therefore, submit that the learned Minister had never directed the name of Dhondabai to be recorded in the property card of the disputed property. In fact, mutation was effected to that effect by mutating her name in the property card, which could not have been done and it is this error that was rectified by the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that no injunction be granted as claimed.