Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 10425 and 10764 of 2010

Incorrect Case Citation Year

• You’ve written:

Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble (2022)

• + Error: The Civil Appeal Nos. 10425 and 10764 of 2010 suggest that the case likely originated earlier and was disposed in 2022, but this case is widely cited as being decided in February 2022, not 2022 in full citation title.

• ⬛ Correction:

o Mention complete citation like:

Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble & Ors., (2022) 3 SCC 465 (or equivalent if verified)

o This helps proper referencing for legal citation standards.

Date: February 28, 2022

Bench: Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli

Parties:

• Appellant: Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd.

• Respondent: Chetan Kamble & Ors.

Background:

The dispute centers on a 5-acre, 20-guntha plot of land in CTS No. 229,

Land Description Incomplete/Unclear

• Sentence:

“a 5-acre, 20-guntha plot of land in CTS No. 229...”

• ⚠️ Clarity Issue: The use of “CTS” (City Survey Number) and Guntha (regional unit) may confuse readers unfamiliar with regional land measures.

• ✅ Suggestion: Briefly explain or standardize:

“...5 acres and 20 gunthas (approx. 2.08 hectares) in City Survey No. 229...”

Village Sahar, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District. The Gonsalves family, through a Deed of Exchange dated March 12, 1894, became the absolute owners of the land. However, in 1993, an inquiry under the Salsette Estate (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951, declared the land as government property. Subsequently, the Revenue Minister issued an ex- parte order on March 17, 1998, vesting the land in the state, without notice to the Gonsalves family. In December 2007,

Inconsistent or Unclear Historical Sequence

• Problematic phrasing:

"...the Revenue Minister issued an ex-parte order on March 17, 1998... In December 2007, Esteem Properties... filed a revision application, leading to the Revenue Minister’s order on December 10, 2007..."

• ❌ Error: It sounds like the same authority (Revenue Minister) passed two contradictory orders 9 years apart without explanation.

• ✅ Clarification Needed: Was it the same Minister reversing a predecessor’s order, or was there a review process invoked? Better phrasing:

“...In 2007, the Revenue Minister revisited and recalled the 1998 ex-parte order on grounds of violation of natural justice...”

Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd., as the successor-in-interest of the Gonsalves family, filed a revision application, leading to the Revenue Minister's order on December 10, 2007, recalling the 1998 order and restoring the 1995 order in favor of the Gonsalves family. This decision was challenged by Chetan Kamble and others through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Bombay High Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the PIL filed by Chetan Kamble and others was maintainable.

2. Whether the Revenue Minister's order dated December 10, 2007, was valid in law.

Supreme Court's Findings:

• Maintainability of PIL: The Court held that the PIL was not maintainable, as the respondents lacked sufficient locus standi. The dispute was a private matter concerning land ownership, and the state had already conceded the title to Esteem Properties. The Court emphasized that PILs should not be used to challenge private property rights without a genuine public interest. The respondents' conduct and history were also deemed unworthy of entertaining the PIL.

• Validity of Revenue Minister's Order: The Court upheld the Revenue Minister's order dated December 10, 2007, recalling the 1998 ex-parte order. It found that the earlier order was passed without following the principles of natural justice, as the Gonsalves family was not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court noted that Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code mandates that no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment and dismissing the PIL. The Court affirmed the Revenue Minister's order restoring the 1995 decision in favor of the Gonsalves family, thereby upholding the private ownership of the land by Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary legal issue in Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble?

a) Whether the PIL filed by Chetan Kamble and others was maintainable.

b) Whether the Revenue Minister's order dated December 10, 2007, was valid in law.

c) Whether the Gonsalves family had ownership rights over the land.

d) Whether the state had the authority to vest the land in itself.

Answer: a

2. What did the Supreme Court conclude regarding the PIL filed by Chetan Kamble and others?

a) It was maintainable and should be entertained.

b) It was not maintainable due to lack of locus standi.

c) It was maintainable but lacked merit.

d) It was not maintainable but had merit.

Answer: b

3. What principle did the Supreme Court emphasize regarding the PIL?

a) PILs can be used to challenge private property rights.

b) PILs should only be used to address genuine public interest issues.

c) PILs can be filed by any individual regardless of interest.

d) PILs are not subject to scrutiny of locus standi.

Answer: b

4. What did the Supreme Court find regarding the Revenue Minister's order dated December 10, 2007?

a) It was valid and upheld the 1998 order.

b) It was invalid and upheld the 1995 order.

c) It was valid and restored the 1995 order.

d) It was invalid and restored the 1998 order.

Answer: c) It was valid and restored the 1995 order. Option Confusion

5. Which section of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was cited in the case?

a) Section 20

b) Section 126

c) Section 258

d) Section 300

Answer: c