Sir Mohamed Yusuf Trust vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary

CNR No : HCBM020220212026

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.22020 OF 2026
1. Sir Mohammed Yusuf Trust, ]
a Private Family Trust, ]
having its Registered Office at ]
Nhava House, 65, Maharshi Karve Road, ]
(Queens Road), Mumbai – 400 002. ]
2. Rabiabanu Mohamed Trust, ]
a Private Family Trust, ]
having its Registered Office at ]
Nhava House 65, Maharshi Karve Road, ]
(Queens Road), Mumbai – 400 002. ]
3. Shabanu Siddick Waqf (Trust), ]
a Private Family Trust, ]
Having address at: Samunder Mahal, ]
Samunder Point, Dr. A. B. Road, ]
Opp. NSCI Club, Mumbai – 400 002. ]
4. Shairbanu Mohhamed ]
Agboatwala Trust, ]
a Private Family Trust, ]
having its Registered Office at ]
Nhava House, 65, Maharshi Karve Road, ]
(Queens Road), Mumbai – 400 002. ]
5. Pravin Bansilal Bhoi ]
Age: 48 years, Indian Inhabitant, ]
Residing at: 2102, Basilius, ]
Rodas Enclave, Hiranandani Estate, ]
Ghodbunder Road, Kolshet, ]
Thane – 400607. ] … Petitioners
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
through Principal Secretary, Revenue ]
and Forest Department, Mantralaya, ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SONAWANE
Date:
2026.11.03
18:14:48
+0530
1/25
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SONAWANE
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
Mumbai – 400 032. ]
2. The Collector, ]
th
10 Floor, Administrative Building, ]
near Chetna College, ]
Government Colony, ]
Bandra East, Mumbai, ]
Maharashtra 400 051. ]
3. Superintendent of Land Records ]
th
10 Floor, Administrative Building, ]
near Chetna College, ]
Government Colony, ]
Bandra East, Mumbai, ]
Maharashtra 400 051. ]
4. The City Survey Officer, ]
Topiwala College Building, ]
Sarojini Naidu Marg, ]
Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080. ]
5. The Tahsildar (Kurla-2) ]
st
1 Floor, Topiwala College Building, ]
Sarojini Naidu Marg, ]
Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080. ]
6. The Talathi (Taluka-Kurla) ]
st
1 Floor, Topiwala College Building, ]
Sarojini Naidu Marg, ]
Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080. ]
7. Indian Institute of ]
Technology Bombay, ]
Powai IIT Campus, Mumbai – 400 076. ] … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.30226 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.22020 OF 2026
2/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay ] … Applicant
In the matter of:
Sir Mohamed Yusuf Trust & Ors. ] … Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] … Respondents
______________________________________
Ms. Ankita Singhania a/w. Adv. Priyanka N. Hegde for the Petitioners.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. a/w. Smt. Gauri Sawant, AGP, for Respondent
Nos.1 to 6-State.
Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Siddharth Wakankar, Adv. Harshal
P. Nahata i/by Adv. D.K. Sawalkar for Respondent No.7 and for the
Applicant.
Smt. Kalpana Gode, Sub-Divisional Officer, Easter Suburban, present.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 8 October, 2026.
nd
PRONOUNCED ON : 2 November, 2026
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 7,
through competent revenue and survey Authorities to conduct a joint
survey and demarcation of the subject property to identify and segregate
the lands not covered by any acquisition and upon such demarcation, the
Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 to record the name of Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 as
owners of the property located at Villages Paspoli, Powai and Tirandaz,
3/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District (‘the subject property’) in the
Property Card, City Survey Records and all connected revenue records in
accordance with the title documents and original revenue records.
Background facts:
2) The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are Private Family Trusts and
Petitioner No.5 claims to be a Transferee or Assignee of their right, title and
interest, claims benefits in the subject property. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4
(‘the Trusts’) hold interests in a larger landed property known as the Powai
Estate comprising lands situated in the eight villages, namely, Sankee,
Tonguey, Compree, Powai, Tirandaz, Paspoli, Vikroli and Kanjur. The trusts
and the individual trustees being the owners of the lands described in the
Indenture dated 06.07.1938 which inter alia include the lands in the two
villages of Paspoli and Tirandaz i.e., subject matter of the present Petition.
2.1) The subject property has devolved upon the Petitioners as more
elaborately described in paragraph Nos.5 (a) to (aaaa) of the Petition.
2.2) Briefly stated, by separate Indentures dated 06.07.1938,
23.04.1941 and 08.07.1941 the individuals namely Sir Mohamed Yusuf
Khot, Rabiabanu Mohamed, Shairbanu Mohamed Agboatwala and
Shahbanu Siddick transferred their undivided share, right, title and interest
in the lands in eight Villages of Sankee, Tonguey, Compree, Powai,
Tirandaz, Paspoli, Vikroli and Kanjur in favour of Petitioners No. 1 -4.
2.3) In view thereof, the said Petitioner No.1 along with the
4/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
individual trustees filed a Suit in this High Court in the year 1953, being
Suit No. 316 of 1953, challenging the applicability of the Salsette Estates
(Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951 to the said lands.
th
2.4) On 19 June 1963, a Consent Decree was passed by this Court
in Suit No.316 of 1953, recording compromise between Sir Mohamed Yusuf
Khot and others and the then State of Bombay. The Petitioners' ownership
rights to the subject properties were acknowledged and categorized as
follows:
Schedule ‘A’: Properties were declared to be waste lands vesting
in the Government.
Schedule ‘B’: Properties were declared to have been
appropriated and thus, continue to vest with the original
landholders, namely, Sir Mohamed Yusuf Ismail Khot and
others.
Schedule ‘C’: properties either classified as waste or
appropriated lands were subject to an independent formal
inquiry under section 37(2) of the Land Revenue Code read
with Section 4 of the Salsette Estate (Land Revenue Exemption
Abolition) Act.
th
2.5) By virtue of the Consent Decree dated 19 June 1963, both
parties consented to the above declaration that, the lands specified in
Exhibit 'B' to the Consent Decree are not vested in the Government and are
5/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
appropriated by Plaintiffs therein being the trustees of the Petitioners Nos.
1-4 hereinabove. The said lands specified in Exhibit 'B' of the Consent
Decree admittedly includes the lands which form a part of the captioned
Petition.
Petitioner’s submissions:
3) Ms. Singhania, learned counsel for the Petitioners, reiterates
the aforesaid facts and submitted that, the said Consent Decree is valid
subsisting and binding on all concerned till date and therefore, the
Petitioners No. 1-4 are entitled to mutation in the property card, city survey
records and all connected revenue records maintained in respect thereof
and are entitled to bring on record the names of the owners and/or persons
entitled to the lands more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto, as
per the prayers sought for in this Petition.
3.1) She submits that, the issue in this Petition is covered by the
nd
unreported Judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 22 September 2026
passed in W.P. (L) No. 21113 of 2026.
3.2) Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Meena A.
Rizvi v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Bom
818. , she submitted that, this Court has unequivocally held that the
rectification sought by persons on the basis of acknowledgement of their
title as owners in a decree passed by this Hon'ble Court is maintainable and
must be affected in favour of such persons by the revenue Authorities.
6/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
3.3) She submitted that, the Respondents have for the first time,
given to the Petitioners the status and probably entire records of the
acquisition by producing the Land Acquisition Awards of the Petitioners’
lands that were later granted to IIT-Respondent No. 7. Relying upon (i) the
report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 12.10.2001, (ii) the
report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31.03.2003, (iii) the report of the
District Collector dated 07.10.2006 she submitted that, in none of these
prior proceedings have the said records been produced. In these
circumstances, the Petition was amended with the leave of this Court,
st
granted vide Order 31 August 2026.
3.4) She submitted that, the Petitioners have without prejudice to
their rights and contentions that, the data furnished by the Respondents
regarding the purported acquisition is not accurate and while reserving
their right to take appropriate proceedings in respect of the balance survey
th
numbers under the Consent Decree dated 19 June 1963, accepted for the
purposes of the present Petition, the chart furnished by the Respondent No.
16 under the cover of its letter dated 21,08.2026 regarding the purported
area acquired by them ("Acquired Lands").
3.5) She submitted that, even after deducting the said Acquired
Lands from the original holding in Exhibit 'B' to the Consent Decree, there
are balance lands in the villages of Paspoli and Tirandaz set out in Tables 1
and 2 in Exhibit ‘A’ to the Petition namely, 58 Acres 9 Gunthas 9 Annas in
7/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
Village Tirandaz and 19 Acres 32 Gunthas in the Village Paspoli ("balance
Lands") for which the Petitioners are seeking reliefs. This calculation of the
balance Lands emanates after close examination of Respondent’s own
documents and hence cannot be now disputed. She submitted that the
Petitioners reserve their right to take appropriate proceedings in respect of
other areas.
3.6) She relied upon the following Judgments in support of her
contention :-
i. Sir Mohammed Yusuf Trust & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra
(BHC-OS:209240-DB) .
ii. Meena A. Rizvi vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra).
iii. Sheikh Abdul Kayum & Ors vs. Mulla Alibhai & Ors reported in
1962 SCC OnLine SC 159 .
iv. J.P. Srivastava & Sons (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Gwalior Sugar Co.
Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 172 .
v. Sree Mukhya Pranaswami vs. T. K. Raghavendra Rao & Ors.
reported in 1996 SCC OnLine AP 620 .
vi. Fazaa Foundation Trust vs. Shaheda H. Mehdi & Ors reported
in 2009 SCC OnLine AP 362 .
vii. R.S. Puran Mull Trust vs. Dyal Sons reported in 2013 SCC
OnLine HP 5355 .
viii. Shankar Padam Thapa vs. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal
8/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2194 .
3.7) She submitted that for all the aforesaid reasons, the Petition
deserves to be allowed.
Respondent’s submissions:
Inconsistent stands
4) Per Contra, Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Addl. GP, appearing for
the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 vehemently opposed the Petition. Relying upon
the unamended Petition and the amendments carried out thereafter, she
submitted that the Petitioners were changing goal posts which cannot be
permitted. During the pendency of the Petition, the Petitioners have
enhanced their claims to lands set out in the amended Exhibit A to the
Petition.
4.1) She submitted that, while the Petitioners earlier claimed that,
the State Government had acquired approximately 503 Acres 09 Gunthas,
they have acknowledged that the State Government had validly acquired
546 Acres 1 Guntha 12 Annas of land under various Awards and that the
said lands now stand in the name of Respondent No. 7 i.e. Indian Institute
of Technology, Bombay (IIT, Bombay). That, the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have
no right, as property stands transferred.
4.2) She submitted that, having made a categorical statement on
oath in paragraph 2 of the Petition that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have
transferred the rights in respect of the said property to Petitioner No. 5,
9/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
they no longer have the right to file the present Writ Petition.
4.3) She submitted that, the Petitioners being a private family
Trust/Waqf are not a juristic entity and/or legal person and therefore
cannot file the Petition in its sole name without the Trustees/Mutawallis.
The Petition could therefore be filed only by its Trustees/Mutawallis on
behalf of Petitioner Nos. I to 4. In support of her contention she relied upon
the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Atmaram
Ranchhodbhai v. Gulam Mohiyaddin , reported in AIR 1973 Guj 113 ,
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sankar Padam Thapa v.
Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal (supra), which held that a Suit or legal
proceeding filed by one of the trustees without joining other co-trustees is
incompetent and not maintainable unless expressly provided in the trust
deed.
4.4) She submitted that, the Petitioners have relied upon Section 1
of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 to demonstrate that, the provisions of the
Indian Trusts Act, 1882 are not applicable to the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4.
However, since the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are relying on the registered
th rd
Indenture of Waqf dated 08 July 1941 and 23 April 1941, they will be
governed by the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, particularly, Section 2
which states that the provisions of the said Waqf Act, 1995 will be
applicable to all the Waqfs whether created before or after commencement
of the said Act. Hence, all the present Mutawalis/ Trustees are proper and
10/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
necessary parties without which the Petition cannot be filed only in the
names of the Trusts.
Power of Attorney
4.5) She submitted that, the Petition was filed and amended by the
Petitioner No. 5 on the basis of Power of Attorneys dated 03.05.2026 and
04.06.2026. According to her the Petition is not maintainable because:
i. Both Powers of Attorney (dated 03.05.2026 and 04.06.2026)
relate only to the 546 acres acquired for the Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT), as the annexed resolutions (dated
23.03.2026 and 28.03.2026) confirm. They do not cover the
remaining land in Schedule B of the consent terms or the
amended Exhibit A. Petitioner No. 5 therefore has no authority
to amend the Petition or seek reliefs in respect of any other
land.
ii. A Power of Attorney on behalf of a Trust or Waqf must be
granted by all the Trustees or Mutawalis, who constitute one
collective trustee in law and must act jointly. Both Powers of
Attorney were executed only through the Chairman of each
Trust or Waqf.
iii. Clause 6 of the Indentures of Wakf dated 8th July 1941
(Shairbanu Mohamed Agboatwala Trust) and 23rd April 1941
(Rabiabanu Mohmad Trust) permits delegation of the
Mutawalis’ powers only to a Co-Mutawali. The Chairman could
not delegate those powers to a third party such as Petitioner
No. 5.
11/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
iv. The resolutions annexed to the Power of Attorney dated
03.05.2026 refer to an MOU and a sale in favour of the
grantees, and the Power of Attorney dated 04.06.2026 is
likewise insufficiently stamped. Both should be impounded
under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and sent
to the Competent Authority for adjudication, and the Petition
cannot be filed on their strength ( G.M. Shahul Hameed v.
Jayanthi R. Hegde , 2024 INSC 493).
v. No Power of Attorney on behalf of Petitioner No. 2 was
produced when the Petition was filed, so Petitioner No. 5 could
not file the Petition on its behalf.
vi. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 contend that they are private family
Trusts or Waqfs, yet the Trustees or Mutawalis are not parties.
Such a Trust or Waqf is not a juristic person and cannot sue in
its own name. On this ground alone the Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4.6) Ms. Chavan submitted that the Petitioner’s reliance upon the
said Consent Decree is without any merits, baseless, misconceived and
unsubstantiated and cannot be considered as the document for title of the
Petitioners for following reasons:
(a) The said Suit No. 316 of 1953 filed in this Hon'ble Court was
filed by 6 individual people claiming to be owners in respect of
properties mentioned in the EX- A, EX-B and EX-C to the said Consent
Decree and not by the Petitioners especially Petitioner No. 1 to 4 who
12/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
are private family Trusts. The typed Copy of the Consent Decree is at
Exhibit "H" to the Petition.
(b) It is the case of the Petitioners that in view of Indenture dated
06.07.1938, Indentures of Waqfs dated 08.07.1941, 23.04.1941,
08.07.1941 which are Exhibit B, C, D and E to the Petition, the
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have got title, yet much later in the year 1953
the suit No. 316 of 1953 was filed by individual persons without any
reference to the said Indentures of Waqfs or family Trusts and
therefore the Petitioners cannot rely on the said Consent Decree.
(c) The Schedule of properties mentioned in Ex-A, Ex-B and Ex-C
to the Consent Decree is in respect of New Survey Numbers however
the Schedule of property at Exhibit "A" (amended) to the Petition, the
survey numbers are not in consonance with the description of the
survey numbers in the consent terms and therefore there is improper
identification of property, thus, the Petitioners cannot rely upon the
same.
(d) The Respondent No.1 to 6 have produced on record during the
course of argument two charts in respect of survey numbers reflected
in amended Exhibit A of the Petition and demonstrated that after the
consent decree the names of the Plaintiffs as per the consent decree
were mutated in the 7x12 extracts.
(e) According to the Petitioners their alleged right to Property
13/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
crystalized on 19.06.1968, the date of the Consent Decree, and for
almost 60 years the Petitioners have done nothing in the matter nor
taken steps to execute the Consent Decree and thus, on the ground of
inordinate delay and laches also the above Petition is liable to be
dismissed with costs.
(f) It is settled law that the Petitioners ought to have gone for
execution of Consent Decree in appropriate Civil Court if they had
any executable rights under the said Consent Decree and the
execution of Consent Decree under Article 226 of Constitution of
India is impermissible in law especially when the said remedy is
barred by law of limitation. The law is well settled, that while there is
no fixed limitation period under Article 226, this Hon'ble Court will
not permit an indolent litigant to resurrect a dead cause of action. A
Writ Petition under Article 226 cannot be converted into an execution
proceeding for a stale civil court decree, especially when standard
execution remedies are barred by the Law of Limitation. The Petition
is deeply hit by the doctrine of laches.
4.7) Ms. Chavan submitted that the prayer of the Petitioners
especially "Directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to enter, record and certify the
names of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 being the owners and/or persons entitled to
the lands more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto, in the Property
Card, City Survey Records and all connected revenue records maintained in
14/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
respect thereof, in accordance with the title documents and original
revenue records" cannot be granted for following reasons:
I. As stated above, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 have not produced
any title documents save and except the said unregistered Consent
Decree.
II. There is no averment in the Petition as to how the title
devolved upon the Petitioners after the Consent Decree was executed.
Neither the Petitioners have given details of the current
Trustees/Mutavalis and therefore the blanket relief " averring and/or
of persons entitled to the said lands" cannot be granted.
III. Apart from the above the Plaintiffs in the Suit No. 316 of 1958,
whose names were mutated on the 7x12 extracts have sold some of
the lands to third parties and therefore such disputed issues cannot
be gone into under Article 226 of Constitution of India and neither
can this Hon'ble Court pass blanket directions in terms of prayer
clause (a) and/or (d).
IV. As per the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966, an applicant who desires to mutate his name is required to
make application to the Competent authority, make necessary
payment of Non-Agricultural Taxes (premium) thereafter notices are
issued, the exercise of measurement survey number upon payment of
necessary charges is required to be carried out unless, the Original
15/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
owners have expired, then the current legal heirs require to obtain
appropriate orders from Competent Court in respect of Succession.
Thus, for mutating the names of the Owners in property card entire
process as mandated under MLRC, 1966 needs to be done. Therefore,
the relief as prayed for by the Petitioner cannot be granted.
V. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they had made
any application to the Competent Authority for mutation of names in
property card in respect of lands mentioned at amended Exhibit "A"
to the petition as mandated by law. In fact, the Reports minutes of
meeting and Application/representations made by the Petitioners are
only in respect of 546 Acres of land acquired for Respondent No.7
(IIT-B).
VI. Hence, the names of Petitioners cannot be mutated in property
card.
4.8) In so far as the reliance of the Petitioner on the judgment
passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 21113 of 2026 is
concerned and the statement recorded by this Court in paragraph No. 20 of
the said Judgment, the said statement is made by the Advocate and cannot
be binding on State Government and this a settled proposition of law as
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in matter of Director of Elementary
Education, Odisha and Others Versus Pramod Kumar Sahoo reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 674. Furthermore, on facts of that case, it observed that the
16/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
State Government was unable to produce the acquisition records, however
in the instant case the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have produced all the Awards
th
and given details in its Affidavit in Reply dated 11 August, 2026.
4.9) In view of the above submissions, Ms. Chavan submitted that,
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the above Petition.
5) Mr. Apte, learned Senior Counsel for IIT - Respondent No.7
submitted that, the Respondent No.7 was put in possession of an area
admeasuring 546 Acres 1 Guntha 12 Annas, pursuant to the Award dated
th
15 March, 1962, as demarcated in map and taken over by the City
Surveyor on behalf of Special Land Acquisition Officer (2), Mumbai and
Mumbai Suburban District. He further submitted that, in event of any
th
dispute regarding identity or area of the lands, the Award dated 15 March,
1962 shall prevail.
Reasons and Conclusion:
6) Record indicates that, this is the second Petition filed by the
Petitioner seeking similar reliefs for lands owned by them that are situated
at a different location from the earlier one. This Court has passed a
nd
Judgment dated 22 September 2026 in Sir Mohammed Yusuf Trust and
Ors. v State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) considering the same issue.
7) We heard Ms. Singhania, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
and Ms. Chavan, learned Addl. GP, for the Respondents and have carefully
perused the entire record.
17/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
8) We are extremely displeased and disappointed with the
obdurate stand that the Respondent – State continues to adopt. We are also
nd
constrained to note that, despite our recent Order dated 22 September
2026, deprecating the stand adopted by the State, it has persisted in
adopting a position befitting a private litigant rather than a public
Authority. Such an approach is not merely impermissible but wholly
unacceptable.
9) The State appears to have shown little inclination to mend its
ways. We would have expected the AGP to have been instructed to
reconsider the State’s position in the light of the Judgment in a similar
matter against the same party and to address the Court appropriately in the
light of that order. To our dismay, however, an obdurate and wholly
untenable stand was again adopted by the Respondent State Authorities. It
only displays State’s scant respect for and recalcitrance towards, the
judiciary. The usual assertion that the State has utmost respect for the
judiciary is clearly belied by such conduct. We are unable to accept any of
Ms. Chavan’s contentions.
10) The defense raised by Ms. Chavan in the present Petition is
essentially as follows: (i) The Petitioners do not have locus to file the
Petition owing to the transfer of the subject property to Petitioner No. 5, (ii)
Petition is barred by Limitation for failure to seek execution proceedings of
the Consent Decree, (iii) The Power of Attorney (PoA) holder does not
18/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
rd
possess specific power to seek reliefs beyond the resolution dated 23
March 2026, and (iv) The Petitioners are not entitled to reliefs based on a
Consent Decree, because it is not a document of title.
11) The rival submissions in this Petition too bring forth a
fundamental question, as to whether a Decree acknowledging the Plaintiffs
in the suit (Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein) as owners of certain properties by
the State of Bombay can effectively be rendered nugatory for not seeking its
execution in the Court of law on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
In our view, the answer is clearly in the negative. The aforesaid contentions
are aptly dealt with in the following paragraphs of our Judgment in Sir
Mohamed Yusuf Trust (supra). The relevant paragraphs are set out herein
below for ready reference.
“14. … A Decree passed against the State of Bombay cannot
be disregarded by the Municipal Corporation, which is a
creature of the State of Bombay under a statute, on the ground
that it was not a party to the proceedings. The State of Bombay
must be taken to encompass all the statutory bodies
constituted under it. A Consent Decree passed against the State
of Bombay cannot, therefore, be entirely disregarded and said
to be unenforceable or not binding against the statutory
bodies. In this regard, Ms. Singhania’s reliance on the decision
of the Single Bench of this Court in Meena A Rizvi v State of
Maharashtra & Ors (supra) which held that a consent decree,
until set aside in appropriate proceedings, continues to operate
in law and must be reflected in revenue records for fiscal and
19/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
administrative purposes does assist her contention. A Consent
Decree by which the State, or any Statutory Authority, grants a
declaration in respect of the subject matter operates in rem,
and not merely in personam.
15. In the present case, the State of Bombay (as it then was)
deemed to have had knowledge of all the actions of its
statutory bodies and the converse holds equally true. Nothing
prevented the State of Bombay from seeking impleadment of
the Municipal Corporation, had it considered that title had
vested in the Municipal Corporation by virtue of acquisition,
vesting, or otherwise at the relevant time. We take support
from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vadilal
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of A.P. , reported in (2005) 6 SCC 292 :
(2005) 142 STC 76 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1118 at page 299,
where it is held that the State, acting through its several
departments, can speak only with one voice. The Municipal
Corporation, being a body constituted by and under the State,
cannot adopt a position at odds with it.
16. Pertinently, the State of Bombay as it then was, now
being the State Government, has not taken a stand that the
subject property was acquired and thereafter has vested in the
Municipal Corporation, in the present Writ Petition.
17. As regards Mr. Godbole’s contention concerning the
locus of the Petitioner No.5 to file the present Petition, we find
it unimportant and irrelevant, inasmuch as the prayer seeks
only the recording of the names of the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in
the records of the concerned Authorities. Had the Petitioner
No.5 sought correction of the records to insert his own name,
Mr. Godbole’s submission would have had relevance.
20/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
21. In view of the above, we conclude that the pendency of
the Suit claiming right, title and interest before the Civil Court,
in respect of the same subject property, was an entirely
unnecessary exercise, which the Petitioners were directed to
undertake on the mere assertion of disputed questions. An
assertion which does not, by itself, establish that the disputed
question of fact exists. We are satisfied that no evidence is
required to be led in the present case for the Petitioners to
establish their ownership rights to the subject property, in the
face of the Consent Decree of this Court, which declared that
the subject lands specified in the list annexed thereto that were
th
appropriated prior to 14 August 1947 were not vested with
the Government, which remains unchallenged till date.
22. The State cannot now disown its role and rightly has not
sought to, nor can the Municipal Corporation feign ignorance
of this Court’s Judgment, whether on the ground that it was
not a party thereto, or that the Consent Decree was
unregistered. The State must be taken to have communicated
the Orders of this Court to all concerned Authorities and those
Authorities cannot feign ignorance thereof. Any objection, on
this score ought to have been raised by the State of Bombay
before the Court passing the Decree, had it considered that the
Municipal Corporation needed to be joined in respect of any
matter concerning it. The State cannot claim ignorance of the
vesting or the lease. A party cannot take advantage of its own
wrong.
23. In our view, going forward preferably at the earliest, the
State must devise a mechanism, such as a shared portal or a
website, for instance, by which all its statutory authorities and
21/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
departments that function under its umbrella, are
simultaneously apprised of all matters concerning them, such
as land acquisitions, perpetual leases granted over State lands
and judgments passed in favour or against it. For these
decisions, once conclusive, are binding on all Statutory
Authorities and are unquestionably and undisputedly required
to be implemented forthwith.
24. In our view, the Decree of a Court, whether passed by
consent of parties or upon final adjudication, cannot be
thwarted or rendered nugatory or disregarded or frustrated in
any manner or form, save and except being set aside by a
superior Court. Particularly, a Decree declaring title in favour
of a party cannot be rendered infructuous on the ground of
limitation, or for want of seeking execution for recording their
names on the Property Card or any Government record. Once
such decree is confirmed by the Court or remains
unchallenged, it attains finality and must be implemented.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12) We find no merit in Ms. Chavan’s contention that the
Petitioners have taken inconsistent stands, or that they have enhanced their
claims and amended the Petition accordingly.
13) In our view, the State was obliged to identify and demarcate
the lands that would continue to belong to the Petitioners after the
acquisition. The Petitioners could not have demarcated the lands according
to their own understanding or whims and fancies. That task lies with the
concerned Authorities and not with the Petitioners or the landowners. Once
22/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
the lands were identified and segregated, the measurements and survey
numbers ought to have been verified, and the findings entered in all the
necessary records, along with the names of the Petitioners as owners,
specifying the areas that belong to them.
14) Ms. Chavan’s submission that, the State had incorporated the
names of the Petitioners in the 7/12 extract is clearly insufficient. That is
precisely the cause for the filing of the Petition, since the State itself
recognises only the property cards as the documents that would show the
Petitioners as owners.
15) It was the bounden duty of the State to make the necessary
entries and to forward or intimate the same to the Petitioners. It does not
lie in the mouth of the State being an Authority under Article 12 of
Constitution of India to contend that the Petitioners ought to have initiated
execution proceedings after obtaining the Consent Decree. Such contentions
would ordinarily be expected only from dishonest private entities or
individuals who find ways and means to thwart or nullify a decree passed
by the Court. The State cannot take a stand that private litigants generally
take and we are therefore unable to accept this contention of Ms. Chavan.
16) With regard to Ms. Chavan’s contention that the Petitioners
originally sought an area of 43 acres in the Petition and are now claiming a
larger area, we find this contention wholly unacceptable. The Petitioners
claim to be the owners of 8 villages, as stated in the Petition. The State
23/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
sought to acquire some of those lands for a public purpose and the
concerned Authority measured them and passed appropriate Awards as
provided under the statute.
17) Only the State would know what it acquired and what it did
not. It was therefore the State’s fair and lawful duty to carve out the
balance lands, to identify and demarcate those acquired and those not
acquired, and to record the same in all the revenue records in the names of
the respective parties, and to inform the Petitioners accordingly. It could
not have been the other way round. The Petitioners have sought precisely
these reliefs, so as to enable them to enjoy the balance lands and we do not
find any anomaly in the relief so sought.
18) It is not the case of the State that it was for the Petitioners to
demarcate the lands acquired by the State and retain the balance for
themselves. We therefore reject Ms. Chavan’s contention that the Petitioners
are changing the goalposts and cannot claim lands other than those claimed
in the Petition.
19) Since the issues of locus and Power of Attorney have already
been dealt with in the passages extracted in paragraph No. 11 above, we do
not propose to comment on them again, for the sake of brevity. To put it
plainly, the objections to the Petitioners’ locus and the limitations of the
Power of Attorney are unwarranted, as the prayer seeks only the recording
24/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

sns 34-oswpl-22020-2026+.doc
of names of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, the owners, in the records of the
concerned authorities and not that of the Power of Attorney holder.
20) We do not find the Judgments cited by Ms. Chavan to be
relevant to the facts of this matter and have therefore not commented on
them.
21) Regarding the lands acquired and allotted to the IIT as per the
th
Award dated 15 March, 1962, admeasuring 546 Acres 1 Guntha and 12
Annas, Ms. Singhania submitted, on instructions, that the Petitioners are
not claiming any part of those lands and claims only those lands which are
not covered by any Award and as particularly stated in the amended
Annexure ‘A’ at pages 83 and 83A of the Petition. Her statement is
accepted.
22) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the Petition in
terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e). Additionally, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6
are directed to demarcate the subject property by metes and bounds within
a period of six weeks from the date of uploading of this Judgment on the
official website of High Court of Bombay.
23) The Petition is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
24) In view of disposal of Petition, Interim Application does not
survive and is accordingly disposed off.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
25/25
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)