MONA ATUL PATEL Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner assails the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister in a Revision fled under Sec. 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ('the Code' for short). The dispute pertains to the three mutation entries. Two of the mutation entries being mutation entry Nos.6176 and 6177 pertains to recording of a lis pendence in respect of the suit property. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhakephalkar submits that this Court in the case of Pramod Moreshwar Tattu Vs. Sub- Divisional Offer, Baramati and others, [Writ Petition No.7040 of 2013] has held that pendency of any proceedings or suit before any court or any other quasi judicial authority, does not amount to any kind of right in praesenti and a right of litigant comes into existence only on fnal adjudication by the concerned Court where the lis is pending. The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not provide for inclusion of a lis pendence in the record of right. The State Government had clarifed this position in the Government Resolution dtd. 21/9/2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that mutation entry Nos.6176 and 6177 are prior to coming into force of Government Resolution dtd. 21/9/2017 and therefore the Government Resolution will have no application to the mutation entries. I have gone through the decision of this Court in Pramod Moreshwar Tattu's case. This Court observed that the Code itself does not provide for inclusion of a lis pendence in the record of right and it is in this context this Court held that the Government Resolution issued by the State Government in 2017 cannot be faulted. The decision of this Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The case of Respondent is not improved only because the Government Resolution of 2017 is issued after the mutation entries are recorded. In the light of the law laid down by the Pramod Moreshwar Tattu's case, the mutation entry Nos.6176 and 6177 will have to be set side and accordingly set aside. The decision of the Hon'ble Minister to the extent that it set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) as regards the mutation entry Nos.6176 and 6177 calls for interference and to that extent the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is set aside.