Bombay High Court
PRANIT BABASAHEB GUND THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER BABASAHEB AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, OSMANABAD.
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- ABHAY MANTRI
Holding
The lease may be granted for the full term of 28 years and 6 months, provided the lease rent is deposited in the minor’s bank account for his education and welfare.
Summary
The appellants, a minor aged 13 and his father, sought to lease land for a solar‑wind project, agreeing to a 28‑year‑6‑month term with M/s Juniper Company. The District Judge allowed the lease only until the minor attained majority, limiting the project's viability. The appellants appealed, arguing that the full term is necessary for the project's execution and that the lease rent would be deposited in the minor’s bank account for his education and welfare. The High Court examined the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and considered the welfare of the minor. It held that granting the lease for the agreed full term would not prejudice the minor’s rights if the rent is kept in his account. Consequently, the Court modified the lower court’s order, permitting the lease for 28 years and 6 months with the stipulated deposit condition. The appeal was allowed and the original order was altered accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether a lease of land to a minor can be granted for the full contractual term of 28 years and 6 months under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
- Whether the lower court’s limitation of the lease to the period until the minor attains majority should be set aside.
- Whether the welfare of the minor can be protected by directing the lessee to deposit lease rent in the minor’s bank account.
Legislation cited
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- lease
- minor
- guardianship
- Guardians and Wards Act
- renewable energy project
- land lease
- welfare of minor
- contractual term
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31885
1 10.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1957 OF 2026
PRANIT BABASAHEB GUND THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
FATHER BABASAHEB AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ASSISTANT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER, OSMANABAD
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Wakure Sanjay A.
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. S.G. Sangle
…
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 27th JULY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated
18.02.2026, passed by the learned District Judge – 5, Osmanabad, in
Miscellaneous Civil Application no. 63/2025, whereby the Application of
the Appellants was partly allowed, and permission was granted to give
the land on a lease basis till Appellant No. 1 attains the majority.
Aggrieved by the same, the Appellants have preferred this Appeal.
2. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Advocate for the Appellants as well as learned Additional GP for the
Respondent at the stage of admission and perused the impugned
judgment and order on record.
2 10.odt
3. At the outset, it appears that Appellant No. 1 is the 13-year-
old son of Appellant No. 2 and is recorded as the owner of the land Gat
No. 109, situated at Suratgaon, Taluka Tuljapur, District Dharashiv.
4. Appellant No. 1, through Appellant No. 2 being his
father/guardian, has agreed to lease land on 05.02.2025, of the said land
for the purpose of setting up, operating and maintaining an electric solar
and/ wind project (for short, ‘the Project’) and accordingly, Respondent
has paid the consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/- per Acre per year, as a
lease rent to the Appellants. The Appellants had also received the amount
of Rs. 84,375/- from M/s. Juniper Green Eta – Five Private Limited
Company (for short ‘M/s. Juniper Company’) towards part of the lease
rent for six months. After execution of the agreement, Appellants have
moved an Application under Section 7 r/w 8 of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, before the District Court, Osmanabad / Dharashiv. However,
the learned District Judge, although he held that it is necessary to give the
land on a lease basis for the welfare of Appellant no. 1, answered the said
point in the affirmative. Despite the said fact, the learned District Judge,
while passing the operative part of the order, observed that the said
permission is granted till Appellant no. 1 attains the age of majority;
therefore, being dissatisfied with this order, the Appellants have preferred
this Appeal.
3 10.odt
5. The learned Advocate for the Appellants vehemently
contended that as per the lease agreement, the period of lease is 28 years
and 6 months from the date of execution of the lease deed. However, the
learned District Judge did not grant permission to lease the land for that
period but partly allowed the said Application by granting permission
until Appellant No. 1 attains the age of majority. Therefore, he submitted
that by granting such partial permission, the purpose of M/s. Juniper
Company would not be served. Therefore, they approached the Court for
grant of permission. During the argument, he also undertakes that the rent
amount will be deposited in the Bank account of the minor/Appellant
No.1 till he attains the age of majority, and thereafter as well. They also
undertake that the said amount would be utilised for the welfare of
Appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 2 undertakes that the rent received from
the said agreement will be utilised for the education and general welfare
purposes of Appellant No. 1. Consequently, he requests to grant
permission to execute the lease deed for its entire duration of 28 years
and 6 months.
6. Learned Additional GP, going through the record submitted,
that it would be appropriate to deposit the amount of rent in the name of
the minor in his bank account till he attains the age of majority and
thereafter also. Therefore, the rights and interests of Appellant No. 1can
4 10.odt
be protected.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and
Addi. G. P. and having gone through the impugned judgment and record,
the following points arise for determination:
(i) Whether any interference is required with the
impugned judgment and award in this Appeal ?
(ii) What order ?
Point No. (i) and (ii).
8. Having considered their submissions, I found substance in
their submissions as deposit of money in the bank account of the
Appellant No. 1 certainly is for his welfare. Therefore, in my view, it
would be appropriate to grant permission to execute the lease deed for a
period of 28 years and 6 months, as agreed between the parties, instead of
until Appellant No. 1 attains the age of majority. If the permission is
granted to execute the lease deed for the period of 28 years and 6 months,
then it would not cause prejudice to the rights of Appellant no. 1. Still,
his rights can be protected by directing M/s. Juniper Company to deposit
the amount in the Bank account of Appellant No. 1 for his education and
welfare purposes. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, though, held
that it would be appropriate to grant the land on a lease basis; however,
5 10.odt
the permission was granted till Appellant no. 1 attains the age of majority,
and therefore, based on the said findings, the purpose of granting land on
a lease basis would not be subserved; as such, the impugned judgment
cannot be sustained as the M/s. Juniper Company, requires the said land
at least minimum period of 28 years and 6 months for the purpose of
setting up, operating and maintaining an electric solar and/ wind project
to protect its rights, and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned
District Judge to the extent of grant of partial permission till Appellant
no. 1 attains the age of majority is liable to be modified as it would not
subserve the purpose of the agreement and would not serve the welfare of
Appellant no. 1. Hence, I answer point No. 1 in the affirmative and proceed
to pass the order.
9. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order are hereby modified as under :
i. The Appellants are permitted to grant the land on
lease basis for a period of 28 years and 6 months from the
date of the execution of the lease deed, subject to the
condition that M/s. Juniper Company shall deposit the lease
rent/charges in the Bank account of Appellant no. 1 till he
attains the age of majority, and thereafter, till the period of
the lease deed over.
6 10.odt
ii. Rest of the conditions as laid down in the impugned
order shall remain intact.
10. The Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. Civil Application pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )
SPC
Checking your session…