Later Municipal Notification Can Affect Tenancy Purchase Rights Under Maharashtra Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge Filed After Four Decades
Hadapsar Tenant Claimed Deemed Ownership from 1957; Bombay High Court Holds Later Municipal Notification Could Affect Tenancy Rights
Facts
The dispute concerned agricultural land bearing Survey Number 160/1, admeasuring 92 R, situated at Village Hadapsar, Pune.
The petitioners claimed through their ancestor, Namdeo Mahadu Dalvi, who was allegedly cultivating the land as a tenant before 1 April 1957, commonly known as “Tiller’s Day.”
According to the petitioners:
- Namdeo Dalvi became a protected tenant and deemed purchaser under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
- Mutation Entry Number 4449, dated 12 October 1953, recorded him as the tenant.
- In 1957, the landlord instituted proceedings under Section 31 of the Act.
- By an order dated 24 January 1959, the landlord was permitted to recover half of the land, subject to its conversion to non-agricultural use within the prescribed period.
- The landlord allegedly failed to comply with that condition.
Namdeo Dalvi died on 19 January 1960. Mutation Entry Number 5384, dated 13 February 1960, thereafter recorded his legal heirs in the “Other Rights” column of the revenue record.
On 3 March 1962, the limits of the Pune Municipal Corporation were extended, bringing the disputed land within the municipal area.
On 14 February 1964, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal held that the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was no longer applicable to the land because it had entered the municipal limits. Consequently, Mutation Entry Number 6433, dated 30 March 1964, removed the names of the tenant’s legal heirs from the revenue records.
The petitioners alleged that the 1964 order and consequential mutation were passed without notice to the tenant’s legal heirs.
On 29 September 2007, the petitioners filed a tenancy appeal challenging the 1964 order, along with an application for condonation of delay.
The Sub-Divisional Officer initially held on 28 March 2008 that the appeal was not maintainable. However, the matter continued to appear on the authority’s board. On 25 August 2008, a Roznama entry recorded that no further order was necessary because the earlier officer had already decided the matter.
The petitioners claimed that no formal order was supplied to them. After obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, they filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in February 2010.
Meanwhile, proceedings under Section 32G were initiated on a reference made by the Civil Court. In 2012, the Tahsildar held that the petitioners’ ancestor was a tenant on 1 April 1957, found that the petitioners remained in possession and fixed the purchase price.
The landlords successfully challenged that decision before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioners thereafter approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
By separate orders dated 6 September 2018, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed their revision applications. The petitioners challenged those orders before the Bombay High Court.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners’ predecessor became a deemed purchaser under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, on 1 April 1957.
- Whether the subsequent application of Section 88(1)(b), after the land entered municipal limits, excluded the operation of the Act and affected the deemed-purchase rights.
- Whether the Agricultural Lands Tribunal’s order dated 14 February 1964 was completely void or merely an allegedly erroneous order.
- Whether the order was invalid because it was allegedly passed against a tenant who had already died.
- Whether the petitioners satisfactorily explained the delay of several decades in challenging the 1964 order.
- Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s refusal to condone the delay required interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that their predecessor automatically became a deemed purchaser of the land on Tiller’s Day under Section 32 of the Act.
They contended that:
- Ownership vested in the tenant by operation of law on 1 April 1957.
- The subsequent inclusion of the land within Pune Municipal Corporation limits could not retrospectively take away an ownership right that had already vested.
- The 1964 order closing the tenancy proceedings was passed without legal authority and was therefore a nullity.
- A void order could be challenged at any time, making the ordinary law of limitation inapplicable.
- The original tenant had died in 1960, but the 1964 order was allegedly passed without bringing his legal representatives on record.
- No notice was given before removing the legal heirs’ names from the revenue records.
- Conflicting Roznama entries and the absence of a formal appellate order created genuine confusion about the status of their appeal.
- After learning the correct position through the Right to Information Act, they promptly initiated revisional proceedings.
- The Revenue Tribunal should have decided their claim on merits instead of rejecting it on limitation.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents submitted that deemed purchase under Section 32 was not an absolute or unconditional right.
They argued that:
- Section 32 expressly makes deemed purchase subject to the succeeding provisions of the Act.
- Section 88(1)(b) uses wide language and excludes the application of the preceding provisions of the Act to land notified for non-agricultural or industrial development.
- A tenant’s statutory purchase rights could therefore be affected when Section 88(1)(b) became applicable.
- The Supreme Court had already held that a notification under Section 88(1)(b) could operate retrospectively.
- The petitioners could not rely upon decisions arising under Gujarat amendments because those special statutory provisos did not exist in Maharashtra.
- Even an incorrect order remains binding until it is set aside by a competent authority.
- The petitioners failed to produce the complete 1964 order despite being directed to do so.
- Without the original order and cause title, it could not be established that the proceedings had continued only against a deceased person.
- The petitioners could not take advantage of their own failure to produce the relevant record.
- No satisfactory explanation was given for challenging the original order after more than four decades.
- Even after the proceedings of August 2008, the petitioners waited until November 2009 to apply for a certified copy without explaining that period.
Analysis of the Law
Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, provides that every qualifying tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land from the landlord on 1 April 1957.
However, Section 32 begins by making that deemed purchase subject to the other provisions of the section and the succeeding provisions of the Act.
The Court explained that the statutory purchase was therefore not entirely unconditional. The Act itself recognised situations in which a purchase could become ineffective, including:
- The tenant’s unwillingness to purchase;
- Non-payment of the purchase price; and
- Other circumstances expressly governed by the subsequent provisions.
Section 88(1)(b) provides that the preceding provisions of the Act shall not apply to an area notified by the State Government as reserved for non-agricultural or industrial development.
The Court considered the words “nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply” to be broad and significant. Unlike provisions excluding only specified sections, Section 88(1)(b) excludes the operation of all preceding provisions in relation to notified land.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation in Parvati v. Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad was binding. That decision held that a notification under Section 88(1)(b) could operate retrospectively and render rights acquired under the Act non-existent in relation to the notified land.
The Court also distinguished between:
- An order passed entirely without jurisdiction, which may be treated as void; and
- An order that may be legally incorrect but was passed by a competent authority.
An allegedly erroneous order does not become a nullity merely because another interpretation of the law is possible. It continues to bind the parties until set aside through appropriate legal proceedings.
Precedent Analysis
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay, All India Reporter 1959 Supreme Court 459
The Supreme Court held that the landlord’s title passes to the tenant on Tiller’s Day and that the tenant acquires a vested interest, subject to the circumstances in which the Act makes the purchase ineffective.
The Bombay High Court accepted the importance of this principle but held that the statutory purchase must still be read with the remaining provisions of the Act.
Parvati v. Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad, All India Reporter 1986 Supreme Court 2204
The Supreme Court held that a notification under Section 88(1)(b) operates retrospectively and makes the provisions of the Tenancy Act inapplicable to the notified land.
The Bombay High Court treated this as the binding precedent governing Section 88(1)(b) under the Maharashtra legislation.
Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, All India Reporter 1991 Supreme Court 1538
The petitioners relied on this judgment to argue that rights already acquired by a deemed purchaser could not be retrospectively taken away.
The High Court distinguished it because the decision concerned two special provisos introduced through amendments applicable in Gujarat. Those provisos were absent from the Maharashtra enactment.
Ankush Hiraman Magar v. Thakubai Maruti Tupe, All India Reporter 1981 Bombay 350
This decision held that purchase is completed on Tiller’s Day and subsequent inclusion of the land within municipal limits does not divest the tenant.
The High Court held that the case arose in a different statutory setting involving Sections 88C and 43C. It did not determine the effect of Section 88(1)(b) in light of the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Parvati.
Pralhad Ganaba Kapare v. Sadaba Rambhau Bhonsale, All India Reporter 1973 Bombay 172
The petitioners relied on this decision to argue that rights acquired under Section 32 could not be taken away through a subsequent notification.
The Court, however, held that the dispute had to be decided according to the binding interpretation of Section 88(1)(b) subsequently given by the Supreme Court.
Jasin Tomu Damel v. Harischandra Pandurang Muranjan, 1959 Supreme Court Cases OnLine Bombay 100
This judgment treated the deemed purchaser’s entitlement as a statutory right rather than an absolute vested right. The Court found its broad approach consistent with the later interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court.
V.S. Charati v. Hussein Nhanu Jamadar, (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 273
The Supreme Court held that an order does not become a nullity merely because it may be legally incorrect. It continues to bind the parties unless set aside.
The High Court relied substantially on this principle while rejecting the petitioners’ attempt to completely disregard the 1964 order.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bombay High Court held that the petitioners failed to establish that the 1964 order was completely void.
Their contention that the order had been passed against a deceased tenant could not be verified because they failed to produce the complete order and its cause title despite being directed to do so.
Since the petitioners alleged that the order was a nullity, the burden was upon them to prove that allegation. A bare assertion, unsupported by the original proceedings, was insufficient.
The Court further held that the statutory purchase under Section 32 could not be examined in isolation. It was expressly subject to the succeeding provisions of the Act, including the statutory exclusion arising under Section 88(1)(b).
The interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court in Parvati governed the dispute. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners either arose under materially different provisions or concerned Gujarat-specific amendments.
Once the 1964 order was not proved to be a nullity, the petitioners were required to provide a convincing explanation for the enormous delay in challenging it.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had considered:
- The delay of several decades in challenging the 1964 order;
- The events concerning the appeal in 2008;
- The petitioners’ failure to promptly obtain a certified copy; and
- The unexplained period between August 2008 and November 2009.
The Tribunal’s conclusion that sufficient cause had not been established was reasonable and supported by the record.
The High Court held that it could not substitute its own view under Article 226 merely because another conclusion on condonation of delay might also have been possible.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that:
- The petitioners failed to prove that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal’s order dated 14 February 1964 was a nullity.
- An allegedly incorrect order continues to bind the parties until set aside by a competent forum.
- The effect of Section 88(1)(b) had to be determined according to the binding Supreme Court decision in Parvati.
- The petitioners failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of several decades in challenging the original order.
- The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s refusal to condone the delay was neither arbitrary nor contrary to law.
The Court dismissed both writ petitions as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs was passed, and all pending interim applications were disposed of.
Case Details
Case: Prashant Haribhau Dalvi and Others v. Govind Ramchandra Saptarshi, Deceased Through Legal Representatives, and Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Numbers: Writ Petition Number 3280 of 2020 with Writ Petition Number 3088 of 2020
Judge: Justice Amit Borkar
Reserved On: 13 July 2026
Pronounced On: 20 July 2026
Result: Writ petitions dismissed; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s orders upheld; no order as to costs.
