Bombay HC Orders PCMC To Enter 1984 Society-Block Buyer’s Name, Charging Mutation Fees At 1996 Rates Without Deciding Title

The petitioner claimed possession of Block No. 6/B under an agreement for sale dated 7 October 1984, executed by the original allottee.

After contesting the society’s initial refusal, he was admitted as a member and issued a share certificate.

He sought mutation of his name in the municipal records, but the authorities objected that the agreement was not a registered conveyance.

The petitioner stated that his name was already on the property-tax register and that he had first applied for mutation on 30 July 1996.

Whether the petitioner’s name could be entered in the municipal records despite the absence of a registered sale deed.

Whether transfer fees for the mutation should be assessed at the rates prevailing when the petitioner first applied in 1996.

The Court applied the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, governing entry of names in municipal records.

It reaffirmed that municipal records are maintained for fiscal purposes and that an entry in those records does not confer title.

Accordingly, the absence of a registered conveyance was not, by itself, a valid ground to refuse a fiscal mutation.

The Court cited no precedent.

The petitioner sought only mutation, not a declaration of title.

His possession, society membership, share certificate, and existing entry in the property-tax register supported consideration of his application for that limited purpose.

Since mutation would not determine or transfer title, the respondents’ objection based solely on the unregistered agreement did not justify refusal.

As the petitioner first applied on 30 July 1996, the Court directed that the applicable transfer fees be calculated at the rates prevailing on that date.

It expressly stated that the directions did not constitute an endorsement or determination of the petitioner’s title.

Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.