Bombay High Court
PRAFULCHAND PATKAR THR POAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the dispute should be resolved by demarcating the respective plots of the petitioner and respondent No.11.
Summary
The petitioner was allotted a total of 96.1/9 square yards from Plot No.621/2, Ulhasnagar, while a later allotment of 180 square yards from the same plot was made to Soni Joy Varghese, whose successor is respondent No.11. The petitioner challenged a notice of conveyance in his favour, alleging that the two allotments overlapped. The court examined the affidavits and conveyance documents, finding that the descriptions of the two parcels were distinct despite originating from the same larger plot. It concluded that the proper way to resolve the dispute is to have the City Survey Officer demarcate the respective plots. Accordingly, the court directed the respondent‑City Survey Officer to carry out demarcation on a specified date and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the allotments to the petitioner and to Soni Joy Varghese (respondent No.11) overlap or constitute distinct parcels of land.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief directing demarcation of the contested plots.
- Whether the notice of conveyance issued to Soni Joy Varghese is valid against the petitioner’s prior allotment.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land allotment
- property dispute
- demarcation
- municipal corporation
- conveyance
- plot mutation
- land acquisition
- writ petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
NISHA 906-WP.7680.2023.doc
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
CHITNIS Date:
2026.10.03
13:05:39 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7680 OF 2023
Prafulchand Patkar
Through Power of Attorney Holder
Being Mayur Patkar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Ms. Minal Chandnani with Mr. Satyendra Mishra, Mr. Rajesh
Ranglani and Mr. Mohit Jagiasi for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ketan Joshi,’B’ Panel Counsel with Mr. S. P. Kamble, A.G.P. for
the Respondent-State.
Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande for Respondent No.6-Ulhasnagar
Municipal Corporation.
Mr. G. S. Bhat for the Respondent No.11.
Mr. Ganesh Valvi, Revenue Assistant, SDO, Ulhasnagar, is present.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2026
P.C. :
1. The petitioner was allotted a portion of a larger area
forming part of Plot No.621. To be precise, an area admeasuring
N. S. Chitnis 1/7
906-WP.7680.2023.doc
57.7/9 square yards was allotted to the petitioner on 16 th June 1983,
for which the petitioner remitted the necessary charges and costs. The
petitioner was thereafter allotted a further area admeasuring 38.3/9
square yards in the year 2006. Thus, the petitioner was allotted an area
admeasuring 96.1/9 square yards, as against his claim of 111 square
yards. It is pertinent to note that the said area was allotted from Plot
No.621/2, Sheet No.30, Ulhasnagar-4, and accordingly, the relevant
entries were made in the Property Card, evidencing the allotment in
favour of the petitioner.
2. An area admeasuring 180 square yards from the same plot
number was allotted in favour of Soni Joy Varghese, and even this land
came to be mutated pursuant to the conveyance proceedings
undertaken through the Managing Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer.
3. The petitioner, having approached this Court in the year
2021 by filing Writ Petition (Stamp) No.9202 of 2021, challenged the
impugned notice dated 8th March 2021 issued to the petitioner,
N. S. Chitnis 2/7
906-WP.7680.2023.doc
whereby he was informed about the conveyance in favour of Soni Joy
Varghese. This Court directed that an opportunity of hearing be given
to the parties and that an appropriate order be passed.
It is also pertinent to note that, in the year 2002, one
Sakhibai Nanikram Harchandani had filed a Writ Petition, impleading
the Managing Officer and Assistant Administrator, Ulhasnagar, as
respondents. She sought appropriate directions to the respondents to
grant her an alternative plot in lieu of Plot No.19 situated on Kalyan-
Badlapur Road, which had been allotted to her and admeasured 12557
square yards.
The said claim was stated by her on the ground that large
tracks of land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the
State authorities for the rehabilitation of displaced persons, and Plot
No.19 had been purchased by her husband in the industrial area. As
the land came to be acquired, an opportunity was given to select some
other land in Ulhasnagar Township. In pursuance of the said grievance,
the petitioner was permitted to make an application to the appropriate
Competent Authority within a period of four weeks, with a direction
N. S. Chitnis 3/7
906-WP.7680.2023.doc
to consider the said application.
4. In furtherance thereof, the allotment of the plot was made
in favour of Soni Joy Varghese, the successor of Sakhibai Nanikram
Harchandani.
There was some conundrum as to whether the same plot
which was allotted to the petitioner came to be allotted to Soni Joy
Varghese. However, with the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Managing
Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar, on 29 th September
2026, we have some clarity. There is a clear admission that the
petitioner was allotted land from Plot No.621, Sheet No.30,
admeasuring 96.1/9 square yards. Soni Joy Varghese was allotted 180
square yards of land from the same plot number. The Sub-Divisional
Officer (‘SDO’) is now of the view that the issue requires consideration
as to whether CTS Nos.21349/C and 21349/D represent different
parcels of land or whether there is any overlapping between the land
allotted to the petitioner and the land allotted to Soni Joy Varghese.
We do not dispute the fact that both the lands form part and parcel of
N. S. Chitnis 4/7
906-WP.7680.2023.doc
Old Plot Nos.621/1 and 621/2, Sheet No.30.
As far as the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel representing respondent No.11, i.e. the subsequent
purchaser of the plot allotted in favour of Soni Joy Varghese, are
concerned, they are clear in their submission that, in the Deed of
Conveyance in respect of their predecessor or the party itself, there is a
clear description of the land in the Schedule, indicating that the
allotment in favour of the petitioner and that in favour of the
predecessor of respondent No.11 are distinct, though they may have
originated from Plot Nos.621/1 and 621/2, Sheet No.30.
This is evidently clear from the document produced by the
petitioner in the form of an Agreement, which describes the area as
admeasuring 96.1/9 square yards, Sheet No.30, Plot No.621, Sub-Plot
Nos.1-2, Near Bk. No.1386, Camp No.4, Ulhasnagar. This description
is different from that of the plot allotted to Soni Joy Varghese, which is
described as “All that piece and parcel of property situated at Barrack
No.1386, Behind Room No.1, 2, 3, Sheet No. 30, Ulhasnagar-4, Dist.
Thane area admeasuring 180 square yards”.
N. S. Chitnis 5/7
906-WP.7680.2023.doc
5. Both the petitioner and the successor of Soni Joy Varghese,
therefore, offer a suggestion that this entire conundrum can be
resolved if the plots allotted in their respective favour are demarcated.
This can be done by the TILR or by any officer from the Land and
City Survey Records. Once there is clarity between the petitioner and
respondent No.11, the subsequent purchaser of 180 square yards of
land from Soni Joy Varghese, we find this to be the most efficacious
manner of resolving the dispute. We, therefore, direct the City Survey
Officer, i.e. respondent No.10, to demarcate the plots of the petitioner
and respondent No.11 and thereby put an end to the long-drawn
controversy between them.
For this purpose, we direct respondent No.10 to fix a date
for carrying out the demarcation, which shall be on 19th October 2026
at 11:00 a.m. We expect the petitioner and respondent No.11, or their
respective representatives, to remain present on the spot.
N. S. Chitnis 6/7
906-WP.7680.2023.doc
We hope that the discord can be put to an end in this
manner. Hence, we dispose of the Writ Petition.
Upon the aforesaid exercise being carried out, if any party
has any grievance, liberty is granted to file appropriate proceedings.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 7/7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.