Mukund Vitthal Tasgaonkar vs The Commissioner Pimpri Chichwad Municipal Corporation And Anr
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010419672023
2026:BHC-AS:43110-DB
WP-481-2024(1).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 481 OF 2024
Mukund Vitthal Tasgaonkar
Age – 71 years, Occu : Retired
R/a 6-B, Cooper Employees Ltd.
Sector No.28, Ganganagar, Pradhikaran
Nigdi, Pune 411 044.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner,
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation,
Mumbai Pune Road,
Pimpri, Pune 411 018.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Pune Metropolitan Regional
Development Authority,
Off. At : Survey No.152 & 153, Maharaja
Sayagi Gaikwad Udyog Bhavan Aundh,
Pune, 411 067. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. S.S.Panchpor a/w Mr. Parmeshwar Andil, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil R. Patil for the Respondent No.1 – PCMC.
Mr. Shekhar Jagtap for the Respondent No.2 – PMRDA.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : : 15 OCTOBER, 2026
nd
PRONOUNCED ON: : 22 OCTOBER, 2026
Wakodikar
1/7
Digitally signed
by RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Date:
2026.10.23
10:58:27 +0530
RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 11:07:53
WP-481-2024(1).doc
JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent
of the parties is taken up for final hearing.
2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a
direction against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to transfer the Block
No.6/B, Sector No.28, Ganganagar Pradhikaran, Nigdi, Pune, in the
name of the Petitioner, in the records of the Municipal Corporation.
3. The Petitioner is occupying and is in possession of the said
Block No.6/B situated at Cooper Employees CHS Ltd. The plot was
allotted to the co-operative housing society by Pimpri Chinchwad
New Town Development Authority (‘PCNTDA’ for short) as per the
Disposal of Land Regulations, 1973.
4. The Co-operative Housing Society constructed building upon
the said plot of land. The society allotted one such block No.6/B
(‘said block’ for short) in the said society to one Mr. Trimbak Vinayak
Garbhe.
th
5. On 7 October, 1984, said Trimbak Vinayak Garbhe executed
th
an Agreement to Sale dated 7 October, 1984, in favour of the
Wakodikar
2/7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 11:07:53
WP-481-2024(1).doc
petitioner, thereby selling the said block to the Petitioner for
consideration. The entire consideration was paid by the Petitioner to
his vendor. The possession was handed over to the Petitioner. The
Petitioner applied to the Cooper Employees CHS Limited for
membership in respect of the said block. The society initially
rejected the application. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before
the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society Haveli, Pune, who allowed
nd
the appeal vide an order dated 2 March, 1993. The society
preferred Revision Application against the order passed by the
Deputy Registrar before the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Society, Pune. That Revision Application was rejected vide Order
nd
dated 22 June, 1994 and the Order of the Deputy Registrar dated
nd
2 March, 1993 in Appeal No. 7 of 1992 was upheld. The Society
ultimately admitted the Petitioner as a member of the society in place
of Mr. Trimbak Garbhe and the Share Certificate was mutated in the
name of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner preferred an
application before the PCNTDA to transfer the said block in his name
in the record of the PCNTDA Authorities. The PCNTDA refused to
transfer the block in the name. Hence, the present petition is filed.
Wakodikar
3/7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 11:07:53
WP-481-2024(1).doc
6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
7. We have perused the documents on record. The Petitioner is
admittedly in possession of the said block. The name of the
Petitioner finds place in the records of the society. Although, initially
the co-operative housing society rejected the application of the
Petitioner, after long drawn battle, the said application was allowed
and the Share Certificate was issued in the name of the Petitioner.
th
The only contention of the PCNTDA is that the agreement dated 7
October, 1984 executed in favour of the Petitioner is only an
Agreement for Sale and no registered sale deed has been executed in
favour of the Petitioner and therefore, the name of the Petitioner
cannot be entered in the records of the Municipal Property.
8. An affidavit was filed by the Respondent No.2, objecting the
petition of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 has also objected the
application of the Petitioner. The fulcrum of the of the objection is
th
that the document dated 7 October, 1984 in favour of the Petitioner
is an Agreement for Sale and not a registered conveyance.
th
9. The Petitioner is residing in the said Block No.6/B since 7
Wakodikar
4/7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 11:07:53
WP-481-2024(1).doc
October, 1984. The society issued a Share Certificate in favour of the
Petitioner. The Petitioner is not seeking any declaration of title in the
present Writ Petition. All that he is saying is that his name should be
mutated in the records of the Respondent – Corporation. The
Petitioner’s name is already recorded on the property tax register
with the Respondent- Corporation and claims to be a regular
taxpayer of Respondent No. 1.
10. It is settled position of law that the records maintained by the
Municipal Corporation are only for the fiscal purposes. Only because
the name of a particular person is entered in the records of the
Corporation, would not confer any title right upon the person whose
name is entered in the records of the Corporation. Thus, the
objection of the Respondent No.1 that the property cannot be
mutated in the name of the petitioner only on the ground that the
agreement in favour of the petitioner is not registered, cannot be
considered to be a valid ground especially because the Petitioner is
already recorded in the property tax register. At no stretch of
imagination, mutating the name of the petitioner in the records of
the Corporation would tantamount to transfer of the title. This being
Wakodikar
5/7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 11:07:53
WP-481-2024(1).doc
the position, the arguments of the respondent No.1 deserves to be
rejected.
11. The Petitioner had filed the application for entering his name
th
in the Municipal Records the first time on 30 July, 1996 before the
Respondent No.1. who had refused to accept the application of the
Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 is directed to accept the application
th
of the Petitioner dated 30 July, 1996 and charge the transfer fees for
mutation of Petitioner’s name in their records as per the rates
prevailing at that time when the application was first time made on
th
30 July, 1996. It is made clear that we have not decided upon the
merits of the case of the petitioner including title of the petitioner to
the said block.
12. In these premises, the petition of the petitioner deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following order :
: ORDER :
(i) The Respondent No.1 is directed to enter the
name of the petitioner in its records as per the
provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations
Act, 1949.
Wakodikar
6/7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 11:07:53
WP-481-2024(1).doc
(ii) The Respondent No.1 is directed to charge the
transfer fees for the transfer and mutation of the
petitioner’s name as per the rates prevailing at that
time when the application was made for the first time
th
on 30 July, 1996 before the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
(iii) We make it clear that the directions issued in
this petition would not amount to any imprimatur by
us on the title of the petitioner.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to
costs.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar
7/7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 11:07:53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)