SURYAKANT RAVJI SHAH Vs. GAUTAM RAMCHANDRA DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these writ petitions involve almost same facts and same legal issues, they are being decided by this common judgment. For easy reference, the facts of Writ Petition No. 10990 of 2019 are taken as the main case and referred to in this judgment.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the facts leading to these writ petitions are as follows. The suit land was earlier in possession of Dhondu Kesu Mahar, Chorvu Bapu Saravate and Pandu Kondunak Sapkal as Mahar Watan land. On 23/7/1968, an order of re grant of the suit land was passed in favour of these occupants. Later, on 31/10/2006, respondent Nos. 6, 9 and 10 executed one power of attorney, and respondent Nos. 18 and 19 executed another power of attorney, both in favour of respondent No. 5, authorising him to obtain the necessary permissions for transfer of the suit land. Thereafter, on 8/11/2006, respondent Nos. 7, 11 to 14, 16 and 17 also executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 5 for the same purpose. Subsequently, on 15/4/2011, respondent Nos. 6, 9, 10, 18 and 19 issued a public notice cancelling and terminating the powers of attorney dtd. 31/10/2006 and 8/11/2006.

(3.) On 9/5/2011, respondent Nos. 6, 9 and 10 executed and registered a Declaration Deed for cancelling the power of attorney. Thereafter, on 27/6/2012, respondent Nos. 6, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20 to 24 entered into a registered Agreement for Sale with the petitioners. Later, on 30/11/2012, respondent No. 5 executed and registered a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by using the earlier powers of attorney. On the basis of that sale deed, Mutation Entry No. 755 was recorded by the Talathi. However, that mutation entry was not certified because the sale deed had been executed without obtaining the required prior permission.