Statutory bodies cannot ignore a consent decree against the State merely because they were not parties, Bombay HC rules in land-records dispute

The petitioner Trusts claimed ownership of land at Paspoli, Mumbai, relying on historic conveyances and revenue records.

A 1963 consent decree in Suit No. 316 of 1953 recorded that specified lands appropriated before 14 August 1947 had not vested in the Government and continued with the original landholders.

In a city survey inquiry, however, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) was recorded as holder of the subject property in 1968.

The Trusts’ challenges to that entry were unsuccessful before the revenue authorities.

A civil suit seeking declaration of title remained pending; the Trusts later brought this writ petition seeking correction of the revenue and property-card entries and demarcation of the land.

MCGM relied on historical acquisition correspondence, its claimed possession, delay, disputed title and alleged suppression of material facts.

1. Whether the 1963 consent decree and the record before the Court justified directing correction of the revenue and property-card entries in favour of the petitioner Trusts, notwithstanding MCGM’s claim of acquisition and possession.

2. Whether the writ petition should be declined because title involved disputed facts, a civil suit was pending, or the petition was delayed and involved alleged suppression.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It treated the unchallenged 1963 consent decree as operative and held that a decree declaring title could not be disregarded by statutory authorities or rendered nugatory except by being set aside by a superior court; in this case, the Court held that the decree operated in rem and had to be reflected in the relevant records.

It relied on Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of A.P., (2005) 6 SCC 292, for the principle that the State, acting through its departments, must speak with one voice.

Meena A. Rizvi v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 BHC-OS:3317, concerning the continued legal effect of an unchallenged consent decree and its reflection in revenue records.

Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120, for the principle that suppression warrants denial of discretionary relief only where the suppressed fact is material to the determination of the dispute.

The Court distinguished Abhay V. Khinvasara v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 621, on the acquisition evidence before it.

The Court found that MCGM’s acquisition case was not established by the historical correspondence and was inconsistent with its own account of a 99-year lease beginning in 1863.

It held that the correspondence did not, by itself, prove a completed acquisition, and that the alleged use of the land and presence of water pipelines did not establish ownership.

The 1963 decree, which remained unchallenged, recorded the relevant lands as not vested in the Government; the Court therefore considered the 1968 entry unsupported by a proper basis and made without regard to the decree.

It rejected MCGM’s non-party objection, holding that the State could not rely on its separate statutory bodies to disregard a decree against it.

It also found no prejudice from the alleged suppression and treated Petitioner No. 5’s standing as immaterial because the relief sought was to record the names of Petitioner Nos. 1–4.

It directed Respondent Nos. 4–7 to demarcate the subject property by metes and bounds within six weeks of the judgment being uploaded.

The petition was allowed without costs, and MCGM’s request for a stay pending an intended appeal was rejected.