# BMC on the Property Card Since 1968. A 1963 Decree Wins. By Saurabh Garg, founder·7 min read·Published 2026-09-30 **Short answer:** On 22 September 2026 the Bombay High Court ordered the land records for CTS No. 31 at Paspoli, Kurla to carry the names of four private family trusts in place of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, whose name went on the property card in 1968. The court held that a 1963 consent decree declaring the land vested in the trusts binds the corporation even though it was not a party and the decree was never registered, and that a decree declaring title cannot be defeated by limitation or by a failure to seek execution for the property card entry. It ordered the land demarcated within six weeks of the judgment being uploaded, which was on 28 September 2026, and refused the corporation a stay. # The Corporation's Name Went on the Property Card in 1968. On 22 September 2026 the Bombay High Court Ordered It Replaced. **Four private family trusts hold a 1963 consent decree of the Bombay High Court declaring that land at Paspoli, Kurla vested in them. In 1968 a City Survey inquiry put the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on the property card anyway. On 22 September 2026 a Division Bench held that the decree binds the corporation, even though it was not a party and the decree was never registered, and ordered the trusts' names into the records. It refused the corporation's request for a stay.** ## The case The judgment is in Writ Petition (L) No. 21113 of 2026, *Sir Mohammed Yusuf Trust & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.*, 2026:BHC-OS:20924-DB, CNR HCBM020211132026. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata reserved it on 28 August 2026 and pronounced it on 22 September 2026. Justice Kamal Khata wrote it. The court uploaded it on 28 September 2026. It runs to 23 pages. The land is Old Survey No. 66, New Survey No. 15, CTS No. 31, 8,697.60 square metres at Revenue Village Paspoli, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban (paragraph 1). ## How the land records went wrong On the petition and the order (paragraphs 3 to 7): - The trusts trace title through an 1837 grant by the East India Company, High Court orders of 1919 and 1926, conveyances of 1929, and an indenture of 6 July 1938 by which the Central Bank of India conveyed the estate to them for Rs 3,50,000. Their names were mutated in the revenue records, including the 7/12 extract. - A consent decree of 19 June 1963 in Suit No. 316 of 1953, against the State of Bombay, declared which lands vested in the Government and which stayed with the original landholders. The subject land was in the second group. - A City Survey inquiry on 5 August 1967 led to the corporation's name being entered on the property card on 5 January 1968. The trusts say they had no notice. - In 2004 the trusts' attorney applied for the property card and found the entry. Appeals and a revision before land records officers and the Revenue Minister followed from 2004 to 2008. A writ petition of 2014 ended with liberty to file a civil suit, which was filed in 2016 and is pending. A second writ petition was withdrawn on 18 June 2026 with liberty to file this one. The corporation said the land was part of the Vehar lake lands acquired under 1885 letters, held on a 99-year lease from 1 July 1863, and vested in it after 1962. It said the 1963 decree did not bind it because it was not a party and the decree was unregistered, that the petition raised disputed facts, and that it was time-barred given the 1968 entry (paragraphs 7 to 7.9). ## What the court held - On acquisition. If the lands had vested in the Government and been leased to the corporation from 1863, there was "no reason to acquire" the same lands later. The 1885 and 1887 letters show the Government acknowledged the lands to be "under private ownership" (paragraph 10). Pipelines on the site do not by themselves give ownership by acquisition (paragraph 12). - On the property card entry. There is "absolutely no evidence" of the basis on which the City Survey Officer entered the corporation's name. The entry was "incorrectly recorded" because the inquiry did not consider the 1963 decree (paragraph 11). - On a party that was not in the suit. A decree against the State of Bombay "cannot be disregarded" by the corporation, a statutory body created under the State. A consent decree granting a declaration "operates in rem, and not merely in personam" (paragraph 14). The State's own counsel accepted that the corporation cannot disclaim it (paragraph 20). The corporation also cannot rely on the decree being unregistered (paragraph 22). - On delay. A decree declaring title "cannot be rendered infructuous on the ground of limitation, or for want of seeking execution for recording their names on the Property Card or any Government record" (paragraph 24). - On the pending suit. Sending the trusts to a civil suit "was an entirely unnecessary exercise"; no evidence was needed in the face of the decree (paragraph 21). The court allowed the petition in terms of prayers (i) to (iii). The petition sought the trusts' names in the revenue records and the property card, and demarcation of the land (paragraph 1). The court directed the land records officers to demarcate the land by metes and bounds within six weeks of the judgment being uploaded (paragraph 25). It also asked the State to set up a shared portal so that all its bodies learn of acquisitions, leases and judgments (paragraph 23). The corporation's counsel said it intends to appeal to the Supreme Court and asked for a stay. The court refused (paragraphs 27 to 29). ## What it means for an NRI owner Wrong names on a property card or a 7/12 extract are found late, often when an owner living abroad applies for a copy decades after the entry. Here the entry sat for 36 years before it was found in 2004, and took another 22 years to correct. What won the case was a decree the family held from 1963. The court drew a line between a record and a title. A property card entry made without notice, and without considering a court decree, did not displace the decree. It sits alongside the Supreme Court's ruling of 20 August 2026 that [a mutation entry cannot extinguish title](/guides/nri-mutation-does-not-extinguish-title-supreme-court-sep-2026). Our guide on [khata and mutation for an owner who lives away](/guides/khata-mutation-remote-owner) covers keeping the record in your name. The Delhi High Court's ruling on a [sale deed over acquired land](/guides/nri-delhi-acquired-land-sale-deed-no-title-high-court-sep-2026) shows the same question from the other side. The corporation has said it will go to the Supreme Court, so this may not be the last word. A wrong entry on your own land records belongs with a lawyer who can read your title chain and the entry itself. ## FAQ **What did the Bombay High Court order on 22 September 2026?** That the names of the four petitioner trusts be recorded in the revenue records and property card for CTS No. 31, Paspoli, Kurla, and that the land be demarcated within six weeks of the judgment being uploaded. The judgment was uploaded on 28 September 2026. **Why was the corporation's name on the property card?** A City Survey inquiry of 5 August 1967 led to the entry on 5 January 1968. The court found no evidence of the basis for the entry and held it was made without considering the 1963 consent decree. **Can a decree bind a body that was not a party to the suit?** The court held that a decree against the State of Bombay binds the Municipal Corporation, a statutory body under the State, and that a consent decree declaring title "operates in rem". **Does a delay of decades defeat the claim?** The court held that a decree declaring title cannot be defeated by limitation, or by the owner not seeking execution to get the name on the property card. **Is the ruling final?** The corporation told the court it intends to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court. The High Court refused to stay its judgment in the meantime. *66 MG Road newsdesk* ## Sources - *Sir Mohammed Yusuf Trust & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.*, Writ Petition (L) No. 21113 of 2026, 2026:BHC-OS:20924-DB, CNR HCBM020211132026, Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata JJ, reserved 28 August 2026, pronounced 22 September 2026, uploaded 28 September 2026, 23 pages. Court PDF (161,615 bytes, sha256 757af98f9c0d8fa1…) read in full on 30 September 2026. Listed on the High Court's recent judgments page: [https://bombayhighcourt.gov.in/bhc/front/recentjudgment?page=2](https://bombayhighcourt.gov.in/bhc/front/recentjudgment?page=2) - The digital signature on the first page of the court copy is dated 23 September 2026; the judgment records pronouncement on 22 September 2026. We report the pronouncement date. - Paragraph 20 of the judgment reads "MMC"; the rest of the judgment refers to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. We report it as the corporation. About the author: [Saurabh Garg](/about) Saurabh Garg has run the venture studio C4E for twenty years. He founded 66 MG Road in 2026, reads every proposal request, and replies within one business day. [saurabhgarg.com](https://saurabhgarg.com) · [@saurabh](https://x.com/saurabh) · [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/saurabhgarg) Information on this page is as on 2026-09-30. Rules, rates, deadlines and government portals change without notice, so verify against the official source before you act. This page is for information only. It is not tax or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a qualified adviser who knows your position. ## Related guides - [Khata, Mutation, and Title Clean-up for Remote Owners: Why a Pending Record Blocks Your Sale](/guides/khata-mutation-remote-owner) - [Your Name Off the Revenue Record Does Not Take Your Title With It](/guides/nri-mutation-does-not-extinguish-title-supreme-court-sep-2026) - [A Family Held a Sale Deed, a Will and a Partition Deed. The Land Had Been Acquired in 1959. The Delhi High Court Said None of It Helps.](/guides/nri-delhi-acquired-land-sale-deed-no-title-high-court-sep-2026) - [Maharashtra Holds Ready Reckoner Rates Flat for 2026-27: No Hike for Mumbai or Pune](/guides/maharashtra-ready-reckoner-freeze-2026-nri-jul-2026) - [NRI Property Management in Mumbai](/nri-property-management-mumbai) ## Compare and cost - [The NRI Property Management Companies in India: A Comparison You Can Check](/guides/best-nri-property-management-companies-india) - [What NRI Property Management Costs in India: The Four Models and What Hides in Each](/guides/nri-property-management-cost-india) - [NoBroker NRI Services Review: What the Pages Promise and What They Leave Out](/guides/nobroker-nri-services-review) --- Source: [https://66mgroad.com/guides/mumbai-property-card-corrected-1963-decree-bmc-bombay-high-court-sep-2026](https://66mgroad.com/guides/mumbai-property-card-corrected-1963-decree-bmc-bombay-high-court-sep-2026) · 66 MG Road. Full LLM brief: https://66mgroad.com/llms.txt