Quick Summary: In a legal battle over a property in Bandra, Mumbai, the court ruled in favor of Meena A. Rizvi, putting her name back on the property records. The case involved a complicated history of who owned the property, disputed wills, and a long-standing argument over changes in the property records.
This case took place in the High Court of Bombay. Meena A. Rizvi, who owns Meena Constructions, filed a complaint against the State of Maharashtra and others, including Benedict Soares, over land located at Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. The land was originally owned by John Alexander Dias, who died in 1966, leaving it to his wife, Lidwina Mary Dias.
After Lidwina died in 1966, her siblings claimed the property through a will. In 1979, Meena Rizvi made a deal to buy the land from Lidwina’s siblings for ₹1,70,000, paying an initial amount of ₹17,000. However, arguments arose, leading Meena Rizvi to file a lawsuit in 1985. This was resolved with an agreement, directing the transfer of the property to Meena Rizvi.
In 2007, Meena Rizvi applied to have her name changed on the property records based on the agreement. Benedict Soares, claiming to be a renter, objected, citing orders from 1973 and 1974 that restricted property transfers. Despite these objections, Meena Rizvi's name was initially entered in the property records in 2008.
Benedict Soares appealed, and the name change was canceled in 2009. Meena Rizvi’s subsequent appeals were dismissed in 2010 and 2011. She then challenged these decisions, arguing that the revenue authorities went beyond their powers by questioning the agreement, which should have been final.
Judge Kamal Khata ruled in favor of Meena Rizvi on February 4, 2026. The court found that the revenue authorities had overstepped by getting involved in issues of ownership and inheritance, which are beyond their powers. The court emphasized that changes in property records are for tax purposes and do not determine who owns the property.
"Changes in property records do not create or extinguish ownership and that questions of ownership cannot be determined in tax or administrative proceedings."
The court canceled the previous orders and put Meena Rizvi's name back on the property records, clarifying that this action is purely for tax purposes and does not affect the rights of any party to seek further relief in a civil court. The decision highlights the limitations of revenue authorities in deciding who owns property and reaffirms the binding nature of civil court decisions.
