Bombay High Court
Keru Tukaram Mukadam And Ors vs Dhanjisha R. Zaveri And Ors on 21 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:3488
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 703 OF 2025
Keru Tukaram Mukadam and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Dhanjisha R. Zaveri and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 705 OF 2025
Keru Tukaram Mukadam and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Dhanjisha R. Zaveri and Ors. ...Respondents
______________
Mr. Kailas S. Dewal i/b. Mr. Yash Dewal and Mr. Sham S.
Thakur for the Petitioners.
______________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 21 January 2025.
Oral judgment:
1) Writ Petition 703 of 2025 challenges judgment and order
dated 28 August 2024 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Mumbai (MRT) dismissing Revision Application
DigitallyMEGHA
signed by
MEGHA
SHREEDHAR
preferred by Petitioners and confirming orders dated 16
SHREEDHAR PARAB
PARAB Date:
2025.01.24
15:30:01
+0530 September 2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Thane
(SDO) as well as order dated 10 June 2022 passed by thePage No. 1 of 12
21 January 2025::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docxTahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) in
proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (MTAL Act) filed by
Respondent No.12 -M/s. Roma Builders seeking a negative
declaration that Petitioners are not tenants in respect of the land
in question.
2) Writ Petition No.705 of 2025 challenges judgment and
order dated 28 August 2024 passed by the learned President,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing Revision
Application preferred by the Petitioners and confirming order
dated 16 September 2022 passed by the SDO as well as order
dated 13 June 2022 passed by the ALT in proceedings under
Section 32-G of the MTAL Act filed by the Petitioners for fixation
of purchase price of the land.
3) Thus in both the Petitions, the common issue involved is
about status of Petitioners as tenant in respect of the land in
question and their entitlement to purchase the same in capacity
as tenants.
4) I have heard Mr. Dewal, the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioners. He would submit that Tehsildar, SDO and
MRT have not decided the issue as to whether Petitioners are
tenants in respect of the land in question. He would submit that
no inquiry is conduced into Petitioners’ status as tenants on the
strength of various documents produced by them and their
Page No. 2 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
tenancy claim is rejected only on account of issuance of
Notification dated 15 October 2013 under the provisions of
Section 88(1)(b) of the MTAL Act by which the land in question is
reserved for industrial development. He would submit that
otherwise Petitioners have produced voluminous evidence to
demonstrate their tenancy claim before the ALT. He would invite
my attention to the rent receipts issued in the name of Anandibai
Dhondu Patil in support of her tenancy claim. He would submit
that even today, the names of Petitioners continued to be
reflected in the revenue records. He would therefore submit that
proper enquiry ought to have been conducted by the ALT into the
tenancy claim of the Petitioners and it is entirely erroneous on
the part of the ALT to close his eyes to the tenancy claim only on
the strength of Notification issued under the provisions of
Section 88(1)(b) of the MTAL Act.
5) So far as the Notification issued under the provisions of
Section 88(1)(b) of the MTAL Act is concerned, Mr. Dewal would
submit that said Notification, issued in the year 2013, cannot
have any effect on the tenancy claim of Anandibai Dhondu Patil
considering the provisions of Section 32 of the MTAL Act, under
which Anandibai Patil is deemed to have purchased the land in
question in her capacity as a tenant and what is required to be
performed under the provisions of Section 32-G of the MTAL Act
is a mere ministerial act for which proceedings were initiated by
Petitioners before the ALT. In support of his contention that
tenant acquires status of owner as on the Tiller’s Day under
Page No. 3 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
Section 32 of the MTAL Act, Mr. Dewal would rely upon
judgments of the Apex Court in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi
V/s. State of Bombay1 and Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. V/s.
Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Anr.2. He would also rely
upon judgment of this Court in Pralhad Ganaba Kapare V/s.
Sadaba Rambhau Bhosale3 in support of his contention that
mere subsequent issuance of Notification under Section 88(1)(b)
of the MTAL Act does not affect tenancy rights of tenants and
cannot preclude him from applying for fixation of purchase price
under Section 32-G of the MTAL Act.
6) I have considered the submissions, have gone through the
findings recorded by ALT, SDO and MRT and have also perused
the records of the case.
7) Firstly, I am unable to agree that no enquiry has been
conducted by any of the authorities into the tenancy claim of the
Petitioners. True it is that the ALT seems to have mainly relied
upon Notification issued under the provisions of Section 88(1)(b)
of the MTAL Act for the purpose of holding that Petitioners are
not tenants and for rejecting their application for fixation of
purchase price under Section 32-G of the MTAL Act. However,
both the SDO as well as MRT appear to have conducted enquiry
into the tenancy claim of the Petitioners. SDO has recorded
findings that though the name of Anandibai Patil was initially
1 AIR 1959 SC 459
2 AIR 1983 SC 643
3 AIR 1973 Bom 172
Page No. 4 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
recorded as tenant in respect of the land in question vide
Mutation Entry No.458, the same was set aside by the order
passed by Divisional Commissioner on 7 August 1962. The
Divisional Commissioner apparently remanded the proceedings
for conducting the same afresh. However, instead of conducting
the proceedings as per the observations made by the Divisional
Commissioner in order dated 7 August 1962 the Tehsildar
apparently proceeded to certify Mutation Entry No.1327 once
again recording the name of Anandibai Dhondu Patil as a tenant
in respect of the land on 10 October 1976. Said order dated 10
October 1976 came to be set aside by the Additional
Commissioner, Konkan on 10 December 1987 by setting aside
Mutation entry No.1327. Apparently, there is no order passed
after 1987 directing certification of any mutation entry for
recording name of Anandibai Dhondu Patil in revenue records.
The Sub Divisional Officer has observed that despite Mutation
Entry Nos.458 and 1327 being set aside, name of Anandibai
Dhondu Patil continued to be reflected in the revenue records
without any fresh mutation entry. After her death, Tukaram
Undir Mukadam got his name mutated to the revenue records
vide Mutation Entry No.2295. Sub Divisional Officer has
considered the effect of the above revenue records and has
recorded a finding that mere continuation of name of Anandibai
Dhondu Patil in the revenue records despite setting aside of
Mutation Entry Nos.458 and 1327 did not mean that any
tenancy rights got created in her name.
Page No. 5 of 12 21 January 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 09:04:22 ::: Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx 8) What is more shocking in the present case is the fact that
Petitioners, who claim to be successors to Anandibai Dhondu
Patil and Tukaram Undir Mukadam, took full advantage of the
fact that their names continued to be reflected in revenue records
despite cancellation of Mutation Entry Nos.458 and 1327 and
executed Agreement for Sale dated 15 February 1995 with
Respondent No.12 -Developer for valuable consideration. It
appears that Respondent No.12 has filed Special Civil Suit
No.131 of 2011 concerning the said Agreement dated 15
February 1995 and has secured an order of interim injunction
dated 17 February 2011. After having executed the Agreement
for Sale dated 15 February 1995, Petitioners turned around and
thought of raising a claim of ownership in respect of the land in
question by filing proceedings under Section 32-G of the MTAL
Act for fixation of purchase price. Curiously, this step was taken
by the Petitioners on 24 February 2020, by which time
Respondent No.12- Developer had already instituted Application
under the provisions of Section 70(b) of the MTAL Act on 22
December 2019 seeking a negative declaration that Petitioners
are not tenants of the land in question. Petitioners thus encashed
the position of reflection of their names in Revenue Records by
securing valuable consideration from the Developer by executing
an Agreement for Sale dated 15 February 1995 and thereafter
took a volte face and thought of trying their luck by raising claim
of tenancy by filing proceedings under Section 32-G of the MTAL
Act on 24 February 2020.
Page No. 6 of 12 21 January 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 09:04:22 ::: Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx 9) In any case, apart from above deplorable conduct of the
Petitioners, the MRT has also taken into consideration the fact
that names of the Petitioners /their predecessors have not been
reflected in the ‘cultivation’ column at any point of time. The
MRT has also considered that the Petitioners have never entered
the land after the year 1995.
10) Considering the above position, it cannot be contended
that no enquiry has been conducted into tenancy claim of the
Petitioners. Issuance of Notification under Section 88(1)(b) of the
MTAL Act is merely an additional factor, which is taken into
consideration especially by the SDO and MRT.
11) So far as the provisions under Section 88(1)(b) of the
MTAL Act are concerned, the said provision creates an exception
to tenancy claims in respect of lands, which are notified by the
State Government as having been reserved for non-agricultural
or industrial development. Section 88(1)(b) of the MTAL Act
provides thus:
88. Exemption to Government lands and certain other lands-
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), nothing in the
foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply,-
(a) to lands belonging to, or held on lease from, the
Government;
(b) to any area which the State Government may, from time to
time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify as
being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial
development;
Page No. 7 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
(c) to an estate or land taken under the management of the
Court of Wards or of a Government Officer appointed in his
official capacity as a guardian under the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890.
(d) to an estate or land taken under management by the State
Government under Chapter IV or Section 65 except as
provided in the said Chapter IV or Section 65, as the case
may be, and in Sections 66, 80-A, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87.
12) It is Mr. Deval’s contention that a tenant becomes
deemed owner under the provisions of Section 32 of the MTAL
Act. True it is that the objective behind enactment of Section 32
of the MTAL Act is to create a deeming fiction in respect of the
tenant cultivating the land as on Tiller’s Day of 1 April 1957.
However, it would be too adventurous to accept the contention
that Notification issued by the State Government under the
provisions of Section 88(1)(b) of the MTAL Act would become
ineffective and a person, who never initiated any proceedings for
claiming tenancy, can then file application for fixation of
purchase price of the land covered by Notification issued under
Section 88(1)(b).
13) Though Section 32G of MTAL Act may create a deeming
fiction of purchase of the tenanted land, some steps are required
to be taken for giving formality to the purchase transaction. In
absence of fixation of purchase price, payment thereof by the
tenant and issuance of purchase certificate under Section 32-M,
the transaction of purchase does not take effect. What Section
88(1)(b) seeks to do is to suspend and terminate taking of any
steps for fixation of purchase price, payment thereof and
Page No. 8 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
issuance of 32-M certificate once a notification for reservation of
land for industrial purposes is issued. Once fixation of purchase
price under Section 32-G is prohibited after issuance of
Notification under Section 88(1)(b), the purchase transaction
does not take place and the deeming fiction under Section 32
does not Kick in. It must also be borne in mind that the objective
behind enactment of Section 32 of the MTAL Act is to ensure
that the tenant actually cultivating the land becomes owner
thereof. Thus, the key is cultivation of the land. The object is not
to confer ownership right on a person who is not a cultivator.
Therefore, once the land is reserved for industrial use under
Section 88(1)(b) of the MTAL Act, it can no longer be cultivated
and permitting any person to apply for fixation of purchase price
of such uncultivable land post issuance of Notification would
frustrate the entire object behind the enactment. However this
would not mean that Section 88(1)(b) would have effect of
cancellation of tenancy rights already recognised and
termination of ownership of tenant who has already purchased
the land by paying purchase price under Section 32-G of the Act.
Such tenant would already become owner of the land before
issuance of the Notification and the landlord cannot use issuance
of Notification for claiming back possession and title of land from
the tenant. However, at the same time, if no proceedings for
purchase of land under Section 32-G of the Act are initiated
and/or finalized, fresh claims for fixation of purchase price cannot
be entertained after issuance of Notification under Section 88(1)
(b) of the Act. This is the interplay between provisions of
Page No. 9 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
Sections 32 and 88 of the MTAL Act. This interpretation also
presents harmonious coexistence of the two provisions without
causing violence to each other.
14) It must also be borne in mind that the event of issuance
of Notification under Section 88(1)(b) must necessarily occur
after the Tiller’s day of 1 April 1957, which is apparent from use
of the expression ‘from time to time’. To illustrate, the erstwhile
agricultural land may be brought within the jurisdiction of a
Municipal Corporation by issuance of a Notification the same can
be reserved for non-agricultural use after the Tiller’s day. If
contention of deemed purchase of that land as on Tiller’s day is
accepted and a person claiming to be the tenant is permitted to
file proceedings for purchase of the land post issuance of such
Notification, the effect of the Notification would get negated and
the land would continue to remain agricultural land despite its
reservation for non-agricultural purposes. Such an interpretation
would create a havoc where the land included in municipal
corporation and developed by construction of buildings can be
claimed by a person by filing proceedings under Section 32-G of
the Act for fixation of purchase price.
15) Mr. Deval has relied upon the Apex Court judgments Sri
Ram Ram Narain Medhi and Amrit Bhikaji Kale (supra) in
support of his contention that the purchase of land by the tenant
under Section 32 is a deeming fiction. However, in both the
judgments, the issue of interplay between Sections 32 and 88(1)
Page No. 10 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
(b) of the MTAL Act was not involved. The Apex Court did not
have any occasion to consider the effect of statutory termination
of steps for purchase of land on account of Notification under
Section 88(1)(b) of the Act. In Pralhad Ganaba Kapare
(supra) Single Judge of this Court encountered a situation where
landlord had filed proceedings for termination of tenancy and
had secured an order upto this Court for deduction of 1/4 th in the
leased land under Sections 29 and 31 of the MTAL Act thereby
retaining the balance 3/4th of the land with the tenant, who then
became statutory purchaser. After the proceedings attained
finality before this Court, a Notification under Section 88(1)(b) of
the MTAL Act was issued by the State Government and taking
benefit of issuance of said notification, the landlord attempted to
take a volte face by contending that the tenancy rights had come
to an end. In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court held that principle of estoppel would apply
against landlord on account of final decision of proceedings under
Sections 29 and 31 of the MTAL Act. Facts in the case of
Pralhad Ganaba Kapare (supra) are thus clearly
distinguishable.
16) In the present case, in addition to enquiry into tenency
claim of Petitioners, issuance of Notification under Section 88(1)
(b) of the MTAL Act has otherwise negatived any claim by
Petitioner about tenancy in the land. Additionally, the conduct of
the Petitioners is such that this Court would be loathe to
entertain Petitions at their instance where they have already
Page No. 11 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::
Megha 7 &8 wp_703 & 705_2025_fc.docx
entered into Agreement for Sale in favour of Respondent No.12-
Developer on 15 February 1995 by taking full benefit of existence
of revenue entries in their names. Now they want to earn a
lottery by raising a claim of tenancy by filing proceedings under
Section 32-G after issuance of Notification under Section 88(1)
(b). This Court would not permit its jurisdiction to be exercised
for such activities.
17) Considering the overall conspectus of the case and
particularly the conduct of the Petitioners, I am not inclined to
entertain the Petition for disturbing the concurrent findings
recorded by the ALT, SDO and MRT. Writ Petitions are devoid of
merits and are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No. 12 of 12
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 09:04:22 :::