Bombay High Court
PANDURANG APPASAHEB SHINDE AND OTHERSversusSOMNATH RANGNATH SHINDE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Section 43 does not apply to transfers effected under a certificate issued under Section 32M, and Section 43‑1D is inapplicable, rendering the forfeiture orders void.
Summary
The petitioners, five Shinde brothers, purchased 57.8 acres of land under a certificate issued pursuant to Section 32M of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Respondent Somnath Shinde sought forfeiture of the land, and the Tenancy Avval Karkun ordered forfeiture under Section 84C, which was later upheld by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners challenged the forfeiture, arguing that the transfer of land certified under Section 32M does not require prior Collector’s permission under Section 43, nor does Section 43‑1D apply. The High Court examined the statutory language and held that Section 43 expressly lists other sections but omits Section 32M, and that Section 43‑1D is limited to special cases involving armed‑forces personnel, which are absent here. Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal’s and the Tenancy Avval Karkun’s orders and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether prior permission of the Collector under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act is required for transfer of land purchased under Section 32M.
- Whether Section 43‑1D of the Act applies to the present transaction.
- Whether the forfeiture order under Section 84C is valid in view of the above provisions.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- tenancy
- land purchase
- Section 32M
- Section 43
- collector permission
- forfeiture
- Maharashtra Tenancy Act
- quashing order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:15926
85.WP.10295.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10295 OF 2019
1. Shri. Pandurang Appasaheb Shinde
Age : 54 Year, Occu : Agriculture,
2. Shri. Vitthal Appasaheb Shinde,
Age : 57 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
3. Shri. Rajendra Appasaheb Shinde,
Age : 49 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
4. Shri. Raosaheb Nivrutti Shinde,
Age : 70 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
5. Shri. Baban Nivrutti Shinde,
Age : 65 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
All R/o. At Post Dhondpargaon,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Shri. Somnath Rangnath Shinde
Age : Major, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o. At Post Dhondpargaon,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Smt. Champabai Rangnath Shinde,
Since deceased – Through her legal heirs.
2a. Bhausaheb Rangnath Shinde
Age : 72 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o. At Post. Sangvi, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.
2b. Bappa Rangnath Shinde
Age : 52 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o. At Post Dhondpargaon,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar.
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
2c. Sau. Mankarnabai Maruti Nimbalkar,
Age : 74 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o. At Post Dadegaon, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.
2d. Sau. Triveni Bhika Kale,
Age : 67 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o. C/o. Borawake College,
At Post. Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2e. Sau. Nanibai Balbhim Khedkar,
Age : 62 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o. At Post Sangvi, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.
2f. Sau. Vaishali Sudhakar Dhawale,
Age : 60 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o. C/o. Dhawale Electricials,
Near S.T. Stand, At. Post Tq. Ashti,
Dist. Beed.
2g. Sau. Subhadra Digambar Dhere,
Age : 58 Years, Occu : Household,
R/o. At Post Vit, Tq. Karmala,
Dist. Solapur.
3. Tenancy Avval Karkun, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
***
Mr. V. P. Golewar i/b Mr. Arvind R. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. M. S. Bhosale, Advocate for the Respondents.
***
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : APRIL 02, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition
finally with the consent of parties at the stage of admission.
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31 st October
2017 and 10th July 2019 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (for short “Tribunal”) in Revision Case
No.16/B/2002/Ahmednagar.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
3. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3
are real brothers. They purchased 57.8 R land out of Gut No. 314,
situated at Dhondpargaon, Taluka Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar, by a
registered sale deed dated 12th April 1993. One Bhanudas Navnath
Shinde was the landlord of the said land. Half of the land was in
possession of the father of Rangnath Shinde, and the remaining half
was in possession of Nivrutti Keru Shinde as a tenant.
4. In tenancy proceedings, the purchase price of the subject
land was determined under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “said Act”), and the names
of the tenants were recorded in the occupancy column of the record of
rights. Thereafter, Rangnath Shinde transferred his share to his wife
Champabai, and her name was entered in the revenue record in
respect of half share of Gut No. 314. The remaining half share held by
Shrikant Malani Page 3 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
Nivrutti Keru Shinde was transferred to his sons, namely Raosaheb and
Baban Nivrutti Shinde. Subsequently, Pandurang, Vitthal and Rajendra
Shinde purchased the share of Champabai.
5. One Somnath Shinde (respondent No. 1 herein) filed an
application before the Tahsildar, Jamkhed, seeking forfeiture of the
land to the Government. Pursuant thereto, the Tenancy Avval Karkun,
Jamkhed, by order dated 23rd December 1997, forfeited the land to the
Government under Section 84C of the said Act.
6. Being aggrieved thereby, the purchasers preferred an
appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamkhed, who allowed the
appeal and directed recovery of Nazrana to the extent of fourty times
the land revenue for regularizing the transaction.
7. Respondent No. 1 thereafter preferred a revision before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 31 st October 2017, set aside
the order dated 23rd April 2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Karjat and confirmed the order dated 23 rd December 1997 passed by
the Tenancy Avval Karkun, Jamkhed. Subsequently, upon an
application for setting aside the ex-parte order along with an
application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal, by order dated 12 th
Shrikant Malani Page 4 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
June 2019, condoned the delay and restored the revision. Thereafter,
upon hearing the parties, the Tribunal, by order dated 10 th July 2019,
again confirmed its earlier decision. Hence, the present petition.
8. Mr. V. P. Golewar, learned counsel instructed by Mr. Arvind
Joshi for the petitioners, submits that the Tenancy Avval Karkun as
well as the Tribunal have committed an error in entertaining and
allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the
Tribunal has failed to consider the amended provisions of Section 43 of
the said Act, and therefore, prior permission of the Collector was not
necessary for the transaction in question. It is contended that the
findings recorded by the authorities are contrary to the statutory
provisions and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
9. Per contra, Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the
respondents, supports the impugned orders and submits that once a
certificate under Section 32M of the said Act was issued, the provisions
of Section 43-1D were attracted, requiring prior permission of the
Collector. In absence of such permission, the transaction is void ab
initio. It is submitted that both the Tenancy Avval Karkun and the
Tribunal have rightly appreciated the legal position and no
interference is warranted.
Shrikant Malani Page 5 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
10. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
respondents relies upon the following judgments:
i) Dadu Rau Yelavade Vs. Himmat Rasul Patel reported
in 1992(2) SCC 573.
ii) Lotan Ramchandra Shimpi Vs. Shankar Ganpat
Kayasth and Others reported in 1994 (4) Bom Cr
575.
iii) Himatrao Ukha Mali Vs. Popat Devram Patil
reported in 1999 AIR (Bom.) 10
iv) Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi
Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited reported in
(2015) 1 SCC 1
v) Ganesh s/o Kachru Sonawane (Sonne) and Another
Vs. Khushalrao s/o Sukhdeo Sable and Others
passed in Writ Petition No.9745 of 2011 dated 05 th
December 2023.
vi) Laxman s/o Shankar Bandgar (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
Vs. Venkat s/o Rama Bandgar (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
Reported in 2014(6) ALL MR 661
vii) P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar reported in
2023 INSC 1009.
11. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I
have considered the provisions of Section 43 as well as Section 43-1D
Shrikant Malani Page 6 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
12. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to note
certain undisputed facts for the purpose of deciding the present
petition. There is no dispute that a certificate under Section 32M of the
said Act was issued in favour of the tenant. There is also no dispute
regarding the execution of the sale deed dated 12th April 1993.
13. The only question that arises for consideration is whether
prior permission of the Collector was necessary for transferring the
land, which had been purchased by the tenant under Section 32M of
the said Act.
14. In order to appreciate the said issue, it would be apposite
to refer to the provisions of Section 32M of the said Act, which reads
as under:
“32M. Purchase to be ineffective on [tenant
purchaser’s] failure to pay purchase price— (1) On the
deposit of the price in lump sum or of the last instalment
of such price, the Tribunal shall issue a certificate of
purchase in the prescribed form, to the tenant-purchaser
in respect of the land. Such certificate shall be conclusive
evidence of purchase. In the event of failure of recovery
of purchase price as arrears of land revenue under sub-
Shrikant Malani Page 7 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
section (3) of section 32K, the purchase shall be
ineffective and the land shall be at the disposal of the
Tribunal under section 32P and any amount deposited
by such tenant-purchaser towards the price of the land
shall be refunded to him.
(2) Where the purchaser of any land has become
ineffective for default of payment in time of the price in
lump sum or in instalments, but the tenant-purchaser
has nevertheless continued in possession at the
commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Mah. XXXI of 1965),
then the purchase of the land shall not be deemed to be
ineffective, until the Tribunal fails to recover the amount
of the purchase price under sub-section (3) of section
32K.”
15. Upon consideration of the provisions of Section 32M of the
said Act, it is not in dispute that the certificate issued thereunder has
attained finality and has not been challenged by any party.
16. As regards the orders passed by the Tenancy Avval Karkun
and the Tribunal, it is evident that the petitioners, having purchased
the property from the tenant, were required to obtain prior permission
of the Collector in view of the provisions of Section 43 of the said Act.
Shrikant Malani Page 8 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
17. In order to appreciate the said aspect, it would be
appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 43 of the said Act,
which read as under:
“43. Restriction on transfers of land purchased or sold
under this Act.— (1) No land purchased by a tenant
under section 32, 32F, 32-I, 32-O, 11[33-C or 43-ID or
sold to any person under section 32P or 64 shall be
transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or
assignment without the previous sanction of the
Collector Such sanction shall be given by the Collector in
such circumstances, and subject to such conditions, as
may be prescribed by the State Government:
Provided that, no such sanction shall be necessary
where the land is to be mortgaged in favour of
Government or a society registered or deemed to be
registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act,
1925 (Bom. VII of 1925), for raising a loan for effecting
any improvement of such land:
Provided further that, no such previous sanction
shall be necessary for the sale, gift, exchange, mortgage,
lease or assignment of the land in respect of which ten
years have elapsed from the date of purchase or sale of
land under the sections mentioned in this sub-section,
subject to the conditions that,—
(a) before selling the land, the seller shall pay a
nazarana equal to forty times the assessment of
Shrikant Malani Page 9 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
the land revenue to the Government;
(b) the purchaser shall be an agriculturist;
(c) the purchaser shall not hold the land in excess
of the ceiling area permissible under the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on
Holdings) Act, 1961 (Mah. XXVII of 1961); and
(d) the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1947 (Bom. LXII of 1947) shall not be
violated.
(2) Any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section
(1) shall be invalid.”
18. Upon perusal of the provisions of Section 43 of the said
Act, it is evident that the said section makes reference to Sections 32,
32F, 32-I, 32-O, 33-C and 43-ID. Notably, Section 32M is not included
within the ambit of Section 43.
19. In the present case, there is no dispute that the ownership
certificate was issued under Section 32M, and the same has attained
finality. In view thereof, the restriction on transfer as contemplated
under Section 43, which applies to lands purchased or sold under the
specified provisions, would not be attracted to transfers effected
pursuant to a certificate issued under Section 32M. Therefore, in my
Shrikant Malani Page 10 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
considered opinion, Section 43 is not applicable to the present
transaction.
20. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents regarding violation of Section 43-1D of the said Act, upon
perusal of the said provision, it is evident that the same forms part of
Chapter III-AA, which deals with special provisions for termination of
the tenancy by landlords, who are or have been serving members of
the armed forces and for purchase of their lands by tenants. Section
43-1A deals with definition, whereas Section 43-1D deals with right of
tenant to purchase the land from Land Lords. The present case does
not relate to any of the members of the armed forces, therefore, in my
considered opinion, Section 43-1D does not apply to the present case.
21. Section 43-1D pertains to cases concerning rights of
tenants in such special circumstances. However, it is not the case of the
respondents that the present matter falls within the scope of Chapter
III-AA, nor is it the case that respondent No. 1 was a member of the
armed forces so as to attract the applicability of the said provision.
Hence, Section 43-1D is also not applicable to the facts of the present
case.
Shrikant Malani Page 11 of 12
85.WP.10295.2019
22. In view of the above, I find that the Tenancy Avval Karkun
as well as the Tribunal have failed to consider these material aspects of
the matter and have misapplied the provisions of Section 43 of the said
Act.
23. Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be sustained
and are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
A) The Writ Petition is allowed.
B) The order dated 31st October 2017 and 10th July
2019 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad are hereby quashed
and set aside.
C) The order dated 23rd December 1997 passed by the
Tenancy Avval Karkun is also quashed and set aside.
D) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
E) Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
Shrikant Malani Page 12 of 12
Checking your session…