Bombay High Court
LATABEN SURESHSING RANA AND ANRversusTHE REVENUE MINISTER, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The SDO lacks jurisdiction to entertain the notice because the transfer occurred outside the period prescribed by the Act.
Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Lataben Sureshing Rana and another, challenged a show‑cause notice issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Maval‑Mulshi, under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The notice sought restoration of land that the petitioners had purchased on 10 March 1995 from the original tribal owners. The petitioners argued that the Act applies only to transfers made between 1 April 1957 and 6 July 1974, and therefore the SDO lacked jurisdiction to entertain the notice. The court observed that the notice did not specify the date of transfer and granted the petitioners liberty to produce the sale deed before the SDO. It directed that any question of the SDO’s jurisdiction, based on the transfer date, be decided by the SDO before proceeding to the merits, leaving all contentions open.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 to a land transfer dated 10 March 1995.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer has jurisdiction to issue a notice for restoration of land transferred after the statutory period.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Restoration of tribal lands
- Land transfer jurisdiction
- Show‑cause notice
- Sale deed
- Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act
- Sub‑Divisional Officer
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 6-WP-11349-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11349 OF 2026
SMT. LATABEN SURESHSING RANA
AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS
Versus
THE REVENUE MINISTER,
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. D. Kate & Mr. Prasad
Avhad i/b Mr. Chetan R. Nagare, Advocates for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for the State-Respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners.
2. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has pointed out the
notice at Exhibit-I (page 81 of the paper-book), issued by the Sub-
Divisional Officer (“SDO”), Maval-Mulshi, Pune under the provisions
of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974,
Page 1 of 3
31st AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 6-WP-11349-2026.docx
(“the Act”) particularly Section 2(1)(i), which relates to transfer, is
noted below for reference :-
“(i) “Transfer” in relation to land means the transfer of land
belonging to a tribal made in favour of a non-tribal during the
period commencing on the 1st day of April 1957 and ending on
the 6th day of July 1974, either-
(a) by act of parties, whether by way of sale, gift, exchange,
mortgage or lease or any other disposition made inter-vivos; or
(b) under a decree or order of a court, or
(c) for recovering any amount of land revenue due from such
Tribal, or for recovering any other amount due from him as an
arrear of land revenue, or otherwise under the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 or any other law for the time being
in force but does not include a transfer of land falling under the
proviso to sub-section (3) of section 36 of the Code; and the
expressions “Tribal-transferor"”and “on-Tribal transferee” shall
be constructed, accordingly.”
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the
complainants therein had sold the property to the Petitioners on 10 th
March, 1995 and that the same complainants have invoked the
provisions of the Act seeking restoration of the land. Learned
counsel submits that the provisions of said Act can be invoked only
for the transfers made between 1 st April, 1957 and 6th July, 1974 and
the said Act cannot be invoked for nullifying any transaction made
thereafter.
Page 2 of 3
31st AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 6-WP-11349-2026.docx
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the
authority constituted has no jurisdiction to deal with the matters
since the transfer itself is of 10th March, 1995, so also the authority
has no power to invoke such provisions.
6. Learned AGP has submitted that only show-cause notice is
issued and that the concerned SDO apparently was unaware of the
date of transfer and that the Petitioners have an opportunity to
present their case before the SDO.
7. Considering the submissions and since the impugned notice
does not indicate the date of transfer, the present Petition is disposed
of with liberty to the Petitioners to produce the Sale Deed before the
concerned authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer and may produce it
and seek appropriate relief from the SDO.
8. In the event an application is filed questioning the
jurisdiction of SDO, particularly with reference to the date of
transfer, the said application would be decided by the SDO before
further proceeding with the merits of application filed before him.
9. All contentions of the parties are left open.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA Page 3 of 3
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date: 31st AUGUST, 2026
2026.09.08
11:25:31 +0530
Checking your session…