Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966

28 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE & ORS.versusMEHER K. PATEL & ORS.

2024 INSC 35330 April 2024Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that disposed of a writ petition by adopting a "Minutes of Order" signed by counsel, without impleading parties who would be affected by the construction of a compound wall. The writ petition sought police protection for the wall's construction,

VITHALDAS JAGANNATH KHATRI (D) THROUGH SHAKUNTALA ALIAS SUSHMA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT & ORS.

2019 INSC 97629 August 2019Matter referred to larger bench

The case concerned a partition deed dated 31‑January‑1970 in which a Hindu undivided family allotted agricultural land to two minor daughters of Vithaldas Jagannath Khatri. The State of Maharashtra challenged the exclusion of that land from the surplus‑land calculation under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling

SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 27728 March 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Sahyadri Co‑operative Credit Society Ltd. and Navhind Co‑operative Credit Society Ltd., had advanced loans to sugar factories Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Tasgaonkar Sugar Mills Ltd. and obtained a pledge over sugar stock as security. When the factories defaulted, the Commissioner o

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2011 INSC 71527 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., the lessee of a limestone mining lease granted by the Government of Maharashtra on 12‑Feb‑1980, challenged demand notices for Zilla Parishad (ZP) cess and Gram Panchayat (GP) cess for the years 1987‑1992. The appellant argued that Section 151(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat S

FULCHAND BHAGWANDAS GUGALE AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 67725 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued for acquiring their agricultural land, and the subsequent cancellation of that notification by a Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) under Section 5A. The SDO’s order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner, who also issued

IN RE: ZUDPI JUNGLE LANDS versus

2025 INSC 75422 May 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the status of Zudpi Jungle lands in six districts of Maharashtra, which, although recorded as forest lands, have been used for residential, agricultural, and governmental purposes for decades. The State of Maharashtra sought to treat these lands as non‑forest to avoid the restrictions of the

MAHILA VIKAS MANDAL COLABA AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 30321 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra leased land to Mahila Vikas Mandal for a women's hostel, stipulating that any part used for remunerative purposes required prior approval and payment of 50% of the net profit. The Collector later alleged commercial use and demanded 50% of the net income (Rs 19,03,103) as recovery under Section 

SATISH SABHARWAL & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

1986 INSC 28420 December 1986Dismissed

The petitioners, exporters of frozen meat, obtained permission from the Collector under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to convert agricultural land near Bhiwandi into a non‑agricultural abattoir and cold‑storage facility. Villagers objected, citing potential pollution of a river used for drinking

KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS.versusMURALIDHAR (D) & ORS.

2023 INSC 93919 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal heirs of a landlord, sought possession of leased agricultural lands for personal cultivation after the landlord’s death. The landlord had issued a termination notice only for Survey No. 291, but the tenants occupied both Survey No. 291 and Survey No. 290/1‑2. Lower authorities differed on whether

VITHALDAS JAGANNATH KHATRI (DEAD) THROUGH SMT. SHAKUNTALA ALIAS SUSHMA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT & ORS.

2020 INSC 20719 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the heirs of the late Vithaldas Jagannath Khatri, challenged a declaration that 59 acres 35 guntas of their agricultural land were surplus under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The dispute centred on a partition deed dated 31‑01‑1970, executed before the statutory cut‑

NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusNAGPUR TIMBER MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. ETC.

1997 INSC 29018 March 1997Leave Granted & Allowed

The Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) was liable to pay non‑agricultural assessment levied under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code on lands it had leased to various lessees. The lessees contested this liability, arguing that Rule 9 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust (Land Disposal) Rules, 1955 made the Trust solely responsib

SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAMversusMOTI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 87613 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, widow of a saw‑mill owner who defaulted on employer's provident fund, challenged the auction sale of the owner's land on the ground that the successful bidder (first respondent) failed to deposit the balance of the bid within the two‑month period prescribed by Sections 202 and 203 of the Maharashtra Land

KEDAR SHASHIKANT DESHPANDE ETC. ETC.versusBHOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 87110 December 2010Dismissed

The appellants were elected as councillors of Bhor Municipal Council on the ticket of the NCP, later left the party and formed a new political front. Respondents filed a disqualification petition under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986, alleging that the appellants had voluntarily given

M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.versusPRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 5009 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned an auction of land owned by Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., which was mortgaged to a bank and later assigned to ARCIL. The Tahsildar conducted the auction without observing the mandatory 30‑day notice period and issued the sale certificate and possession to the appellant, Al‑Can Export Pvt. Ltd.,

LAXMIKANT CHHOTELAL GUPTA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 5399 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The partners of Somras Distillers (respondents 5‑7) were in arrears of sales‑tax and their properties were attached. A writ petition sought that the tax dues be recovered from the other partners (appellants) and not from them. The High Court ordered the properties to be auctioned; the auction was held but the High Cour

VOLTAS LIMITEDversusTEHSILDAR, THANE & ORS.

2012 INSC 5118 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Maharashtra government acquired land for Voltas Ltd. and issued an allotment order in 1969 restricting alienation without prior permission and mandating use for workers' housing. Voltas later obtained an exemption under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, to develop surplus land for a weaker‑section

NARAYAN LAXMAN PATILversusM/S GALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2015 INSC 7518 October 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Narayan Laxman Patil, sought entry of his and six others' names in the "other rights" column of the Record of Rights for 11 acres of land in Village Eksar, claiming long uninterrupted possession and cultivation. The original owner, Kamlakar Narayan Samant, had sold the land to Gala Construction Co., whic

ROHAN VIJAY NAHAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12967 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, private landowners in Maharashtra, challenged revenue annotations and mutation entries that labelled their lands as private forests and vested in the State, arguing that the statutory requirements for acquisition were not fulfilled. The State contended that notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Indi

MIS. R.S. REKHCHAND MOHOTA SPINNIKG AND WEAVING MILLS LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1997 INSC 4907 May 1997Disposed off

The appellant, a spinning and weaving mill, installed pumps in 1989 to draw water from the river Wana for industrial use. The Maharashtra Government, under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, issued a resolution fixing rates of water cess for non‑agricultural purposes, and the Tehsildar levied cess o

GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS

2015 INSC 8336 November 2015Dismissed

Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani, a displaced person, was allotted land under the Displaced Persons Act but later faced competing mutation entries arising from a series of revenue proceedings. Multiple revisions and appeals were filed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, culminating in a second revision before

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSICOM LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 14015 December 2008Dismissed

The Union of India and other appellants sought to recover central excise dues from SICOM Ltd., which had defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The State Financial Corporation had taken possession of the mortgaged assets and claimed a first charge over them. The appel

M/S. RAJURESHWAR ASSOCIATESversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3925 July 2004Dismissed

The appellant, a partnership firm, paid Rs. 781.33 lacs for the purchase of land and buildings of a cooperative cotton mill that had been partially resumed by the State. The liquidator executed a sale agreement, but the State later cancelled it, claiming the price was far below market value and that the sale lacked pro

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.V. BABULAL LADE & ORS.versusBABULAL LADE & ORS.

2019 INSC 13184 December 2019Disposed off

The Maharashtra State Co‑operative Bank Ltd. (the Bank) took possession of mortgaged property of Vainganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (the Karkhana) after the Karkhana defaulted on a loan and later sold the property to Wainganga Sugar and Power Ltd. The Karkhana’s employees obtained a recovery certificate under the

LINGAPPA POCHANNA APPELWAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC.

1984 INSC 2264 December 1984Dismissed

The appellant purchased agricultural land from a tribal seller with collector's permission, but the Sub‑Divisional Officer, invoking the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, ordered restoration of possession to the tribal buyer. The appellant appealed, arguing that sections 3(1) and 4 of the

TATA MOTORS LTD.versusTALATHI OF VILLAGE CHIKHALI AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3444 July 2010Dismissed

Tata Motors obtained a 99‑year lease of unalienated land from the Pimpri‑Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (the Development Authority) in 1995 and began industrial use in 1999. The state revenue authority issued demand notices for non‑agricultural cess for the period 1995‑96 to 2001‑02, which Tata Motors challen

PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF PUNEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 8303 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Promoters and Builders Association of Pune and the Nuclear Power Corporation excavated ordinary earth – the former for building foundations and the latter for widening a sea‑water intake channel – and were penalised under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for allegedly extracting a minor mine

SHRI SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL & ORS.versusSHRI BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE & ORS.

2009 INSC 11042 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned land originally resumed in 1955, where a Tahsildar's 1976 order granted a share of the land to Shivgonda Patil. After the death of the original occupier, his heirs sought revision of that order in 1993. The Sub‑Divisional Officer, invoking Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, set a

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search