JUMMA MASJID PANVEL THRU TRUSTEESversusTHE ADDL. TAHSILDAR AND AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL AND ORS

                                                                       32-WP11284-2026.DOC

                                                                                    Santosh

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 11284 OF 2026

                      Jumma Masjid Panvel Through Trustees                   ...Petitioner
                                        Versus
                      The Additional Tahsildar And Agricultural
                      Land Tribunal And Ors                               …Respondents

                      Mr. Girish Paryani, a/w Shavez Mukri, i/b A&G Legal Asso., for
                            the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Y. S. Khochare, ‘B’ Panel for the State.
                      Mr. R. D. Soni, a/w Meena Sharma, i/b Pandurang Deshmukh,
                            for Respondent Nos.2 to 8.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                              CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
                                                      DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Date: 2026.09.09
11:31:14 +0530


                      Order:-

                      1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.


                      2.    The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 28 th

                      July, 2026 passed by the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural

                      Lands Tribunal (‘ALT’), Panvel, whereby an application preferred

                      by   the   petitioner   questioning   the   maintainability   of   an

                      application under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and

                      Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (‘MT&AL Act, 1948’) was deferred

                      for adjudication to the stage of final hearing of the main

                      application under Section 32G, i.e. Tenancy/SR/40/2025.




                                                      1/5
                                                32-WP11284-2026.DOC

3.   The respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have instituted the said

application under Section 32G asserting, inter alia, that the

predecessor-in-title of the applicants was a protected tenant,

and on the Tiller’s Day, he became the deemed purchaser of the

subject land.


4.   The    petitioner-landlord     preferred    an    application

questioning the maintainability of the application under Section

32G on the premise that, since prior to Tiller’s Day, the subject

land has been included within the limits of the Panvel Municipal

Council and, therefore, in view of the provisions contained in

Section 43C of the MT&AL Act, 1948, the provisions contained

in Sections 31 to 32R (including Section 32G) have no

application to the subject land. The ALT was persuaded to defer

the objection to the tenability of the main application on the

ground of non-applicability of the provisions contained in

Section 32G of the Act to the subject land to the stage of final

adjudication of the main application.

5.   Mr. Paryani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that, earlier proceedings instituted under Section

32G were kept in abeyance as evidenced by ME No. 6659 dated

30th December, 1972. Therefore, there was no propriety in again

agitating the issue of the subject land being governed by the

                              2/5
                                                32-WP11284-2026.DOC

provisions of Sections 31 to 32R of the MT&AL Act, 1948.

Attention of the Court was invited to the record of rights of the

subject land, especially ME No. 6659 of 1972.

6.   The ALT, in the view of this Court, was justified in

deferring the issue of the non-applicability of the provisions

contained in Sections 31 to 32R of the MT&AL Act, 1948 to the

stage of final determination. From the perusal of the averments

in the application for determination of the purchase price, it

becomes abundantly clear that respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have

categorically asserted that late Dhondya Balu Khutkar, the

predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 2 to 8, was a protected

tenant in respect of the subject land, and the said fact was

evidenced by ME Nos. 1718 and 1720. The predecessor-in-title

of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 became the deemed purchaser of the

subject land.

7.   At this juncture, it is necessary to note that under the

provisions of Section 43C of the MT&AL Act, 1948, if the land

falls in the area within the limits of the specified Municipal

Corporation / Municipal Borough or Cantonment, or the area is

included in a TP Scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act,

1954, the provisions contained in Sections 31 to 32R, (inclusive

of Section 32G), do not apply to such land. However, the proviso

                              3/5
                                                32-WP11284-2026.DOC

to Section 43C is of material significance. Under the said

proviso, in the event any person has acquired any rights as a

tenant under the MT&AL Act, 1948 on or after 28 th December,

1948, the said right shall not be deemed to have been affected

by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment)

Act, 1952 or by the Amendment Act, 1955, notwithstanding the

fact that either of the said Acts has been made applicable to the

area in which such land is situated.

8.   Thus,    the   crucial   question   that    would    warrant

determination in Tenancy Case No. Tenancy/SR/ 40/2025 is,

whether the proviso to Section 43C has any application to the

subject land. If the tenant is entitled to protection under the

proviso to Section 43C, the interdict contained in the main part

of Section 43C would not apply. A useful reference in this

context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of Ishverlal Thakorelal Almanula (deceased) vs.

Motibhai Nagjibhai1.

9.   In the aforesaid view of the matter, the ALT cannot be said

to have committed any error in deferring the issue of

applicability of the provisions of Section 43C to the subject land

to the stage of final determination, as it appears to be a mixed


1    AIR 1966 SC 459.
                               4/5
                                               32-WP11284-2026.DOC

question of law and fact. Thus, in exercise of the supervisory

jurisdiction, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the

writ petition against an order which defers the issue for

adjudication alongwith the main application.

10.   The petition stands dismissed.

11.   By way of abundant caution, it is, however, clarified that

this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter as to

whether the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 was

entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 43C, and all

questions and all contentions of all the parties are kept open for

adjudication by the ALT.



                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               5/5