The Bombay High Court has directed the City Survey Officer, Borivali, to proceed with the mutation of land records in favour of the petitioner, Champadevi Rajendra Singh, despite the original registered Conveyance Deed from 1994 being untraceable from government records.
The court, presided by Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, observed that the petitioner had suffered due to a lapse not of her own making. “The City Survey Officer does not seem justified in rejecting the Petitioner’s application for mutation on the grounds that no registered conveyance has been produced,” the court said, adding that the endorsement about the annexed conveyance not being registered was merely technical.
The matter stems from a Conveyance Deed executed by the petitioner on August 12, 1994, and lodged for registration on the same day with the Sub-Registrar. Although the petitioner was issued the required receipt under Section 52 of the Registration Act, the registered document was subsequently misplaced by the Sub-Registrar’s office.
Years later, when the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) acquired the said property, the petitioner sought compensation. However, she was asked to produce survey records bearing her name. This led her to apply for mutation, which was denied on the grounds that the conveyance could not be verified as registered — despite a duly registered Deed of Declaration being executed in 2017, based on the original conveyance.
The court clarified that if needed, the City Survey Officer could issue notices to the parties named in the original conveyance deed and, as a precaution, even direct publication to serve legal heirs of any previous titleholders. However, such actions should not obstruct the mutation process.
Importantly, the court reiterated that survey records do not determine title ownership and that the mutation should not be withheld merely on technicalities where no title dispute is actively contested. It further directed the City Survey Officer to complete the mutation process by December 31, 2025.
Regarding compensation, the MMRDA has been instructed to decide the petitioner’s claim expeditiously, particularly since the petitioner claims possession was handed over for the acquired land.
The court concluded by stating that it had not adjudicated on title ownership but merely stepped in to ensure that the petitioner was not made to “run from pillar to post” because of administrative oversights beyond her control.
The petition was disposed of accordingly, and the Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Champadevi Rajendra Singh Versus The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 3116 OF 2018
Date: 31 July 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Amrut M. Vernekar
Counsel For Respondent: Nishigandha Patil
Read More: No Sales Tax at Cement Rate on HDPE Bags: Bombay High Court
