01Facts
The Petitioners claimed interests in lands at Paspoli and Tirandaz under trust and waqf instruments and relied on a 1963 Consent Decree in which the State of Bombay had acknowledged that specified appropriated lands were not vested in the Government.
¶ 2.1–2.5, 4.1–4.8, 21 · pp. 4–7, 9–16, 24They sought a joint survey and demarcation, and entry of their names in the relevant property and revenue records for lands not acquired by the State.
¶ 2.1–2.5, 4.1–4.8, 21 · pp. 4–7, 9–16, 24The State opposed the petition, disputing the Petitioners’ standing, the effect of the decree, and the extent of the land claimed.
¶ 2.1–2.5, 4.1–4.8, 21 · pp. 4–7, 9–16, 24The Petitioners stated that they did not claim any part of the 546 acres 1 guntha 12 annas acquired and allotted to IIT Bombay under the 1962 Award.
¶ 2.1–2.5, 4.1–4.8, 21 · pp. 4–7, 9–16, 2402Issues
i.1. Whether the unchallenged Consent Decree could be denied effect, including on the ground that the Petitioners had not sought its execution within the limitation period.
¶ 10–11 · pp. 18–22ii.2. Whether the State was required to identify and demarcate the lands acquired and the balance lands, and record the Petitioners’ names in the relevant records.
¶ 13–18 · pp. 22–24iii.3. Whether the objections concerning the Petitioners’ locus and the scope of the power of attorney prevented the relief sought.
¶ 10, 19 · p. 18, 2403Law Applied
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, a writ court may direct public authorities to implement an unchallenged decree and perform their public duties.
¶ 11 · pp. 18–22The Court relied on the principle, adopted in its earlier decision in Sir Mohamed Yusuf Trust (W.P. (L) No. 21113 of 2026), that a decree declaring rights cannot be disregarded or rendered nugatory merely because execution was not sought for recording names in government records; it remains operative unless set aside by a superior court.
¶ 11 · pp. 18–22The Court also relied on Meena A. Rizvi v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 818, for the proposition that a subsisting decree acknowledging title must be reflected in revenue records for fiscal and administrative purposes, and on Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of A.P., (2005) 6 SCC 292, for the principle that the State, acting through its departments and statutory bodies, must speak with one voice.
¶ 11 · pp. 18–20Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Trust Act, 1882 Section 1
Maharashtra Stamp Act Section 33
04Reasoning
Applying the principles in its earlier decision, the Court held that the State could not avoid the effect of the Consent Decree by raising execution, limitation, locus, or power-of-attorney objections where the relief sought was to record the names of the Petitioners—not the attorney-holder—in official records.
¶ 11, 19 · pp. 18–22, 24The State, rather than the landowners, was responsible for identifying which lands had been acquired and demarcating the balance; its reliance on existing 7/12 entries did not answer the request for appropriate property-record entries.
¶ 13–18 · pp. 22–24The Court accepted the Petitioners’ statement that they were not claiming the land covered by the IIT acquisition award.
¶ 21 · p. 2405Holding
The Court allowed the petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e), directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to demarcate the subject property by metes and bounds within six weeks of the judgment’s upload.
¶ 22–24 · p. 25The interim application was disposed of as no longer surviving; there was no order as to costs.
¶ 22–24 · p. 25Original Court PDF
Sir Mohamed Yusuf TrustvsState Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
