Bombay High Court
SMT. BHAMABAI YESHWANT LOHOKARE and 2 ORS.versusSOU. ALKA KACHARU GADAKH and 6 ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M M SATHAYE
Holding
The petitioners lack locus standi to challenge the SDO's order, and the order stands.
Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be sisters of certain respondents, challenged a permission granted by the Special Divisional Officer under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to sell joint family land to a nephew. They filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 76, which was rejected on the ground of lack of locus standi. The High Court examined the relationship claim, found no evidence supporting it, and noted that the land had been partitioned by a compromise decree in 1972, making the petitioners' objection untenable. The Court held that the petitioners did not have the necessary standing to contest the SDO's order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the interim relief vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file a revision under Section 76 of the MTAL Act challenging the SDO's permission under Section 43.
- Whether a permission for sale of joint family property can be granted when the property has already been partitioned by compromise.
- Whether the SDO's order complies with Rule 25-A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- locus standi
- revision
- Section 43
- Section 76
- joint family property
- partition
- Article 227
- writ petition
- Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Judgment
4-WP-2994-1999.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2994 OF 1999
Smt. Bhamabai Yeshwant Lohokare And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sou. Alka Kacharu Gadakh And Ors. ...Respondents
****
Mr. P.N. Joshi (thru VC) a/w Mr. Pratik Rahade for the Petitioners.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. with Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for
Respondent/State.
****
SNEHA
NITIN
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
by SNEHA NITIN
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
CHAVAN
Date: 2026.06.17
20:31:58 +0530
DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. On 11.03.2026, following order was passed by this Court
(Coram : Abhay Ahuja J) which considered the petition in detail :
“1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Judgment and Order dated 29 th
December 1998 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is being
impugned.
2. Mr. Rahade, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioners
and submits that the Respondents No. 1 to 5 had made an
application before the Special Divisional Officer (the “SDO”) for
grant of permission under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the “MTAL Act”) for sale of their
land in question viz. Gat No. 960 and 1020 admeasuring 5 H 79 R
and 4H 65 R respectively at village Moje Karanjgaon Taluka and
District Nashik, to Respondent No. 6 and that the SDO had granted
the said permission. The Petitioners had objected to the same
Sneha Chavan 1
4-WP-2994-1999.doc
claiming to be the sisters of Respondents No. 1 to 5.
3. Mr. Rahade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits
that however, the application by the Petitioners was rejected on
28th January 1998 and on 02 nd February 1998, the SDO granted
the permission. Aggrieved by the same, the Revision Application
was preferred before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on the
ground that the permission granted by the SDO was illegal and
against the Rule 25-A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Rules, 1956.
4. Mr. Rahade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits
that however, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has rejected the
application for want of locus standi to challenge the order of the
SDO under the provision of Section 76 of the MTAL Act.
5. Mr. Rahade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits
that under Section 76 of the MTAL Act an application for revision
can be made to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against any
order of the Collector which is contrary to law or if the Collector has
failed to determine some material issue of law or that there is a
substantial defect in following the procedure provided under the
MTAL Act which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. That the
said Section, nowhere provides as to who can file the Revision
Application.
6. Mr. Rahade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners further
submits that the Petitioners had earlier objected to the grant of
permission under Section 43 and because the same was rejected
by the SDO and permission under Section 43 for sale of the land
was granted, the Petitioners do have locus to file this petition as
even the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has rejected their
application.
7. Mr. Rahade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits
that the Petitioners are sisters of Respondents No. 1 to 5 and
therefore, also the reasoning of the want of locus standi to
Sneha Chavan 2
4-WP-2994-1999.doc
challenge the order of the SDO be rejected.
8. This Court after hearing the learned Counsel appearing
for the Petitioners has enquired from the learned Counsel as to
whether, the two Petitioners are in fact related to Respondents No.
1 to 5 as sisters and Mr. Rahade, learned Counsel for the
Petitioners has fairly submitted that there is no such material on
record to establish that the Petitioners are the sisters of
Respondents No.1 to 5.
9. None has appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 despite
service.
10. When this Court is passing this order and has perused
paragraph 3 of the Petition, it emerges atleast from paragraph 3 of
the petition that the Petitioners have stated that Respondent No.6
who is the nephew (Petitioner’s brother’s son) of the present
Petitioners on 15th October 1997 preferred an application to the
SDO seeking permission to sell the suit land to Respondents No. 1
to 5 under the provision of Section 43 of the MTAL Act, on the
ground that it was inconvenient and difficult for him to cultivate the
suit land. A perusal of the said application at Exh.-B (page 14),
does indicate that it is Respondent No.6 who had made
application under Section 43 of the MTAL Act to sell to
Respondents No. 1 to 5 and not the other way round.
11. When this Court has put it to Mr. Rahade, learned
Counsel for the Petitioners to clarify the arguments/submissions
made by him, Mr. Rahade seeks some time to go through the
record.
12. At his request, list on 29th April 2026.
13. It is made clear that if the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners is not ready on the next date, this Court will peruse the
record and pass appropriate orders.”
3. Today, for the purpose of clarifying the arguments/
Sneha Chavan 3
4-WP-2994-1999.doc
submissions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the subject
matter property was joint family property and only one of the heirs has
sought permission to sell the property which can not be permitted. That
therefore, they have objection for grant of sanction/permission under
Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 (‘the said Act’ for short) and it should be rejected.
4. It has come on record (in communication of concerned Sub-
Divisional Officer) that under Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 1969, the
subject matter property was partitioned under a compromise way back
in 1972 and the Petitioners did not challenge the said partition under
the compromise. Necessary proceedings under Section 76 of the said
Act has not been adopted by the Petitioner, as is recorded in paragraph
No.6 of the impugned order.
5. In short, the Petitioners have failed to establish that they have
locus standi to file the revision or to challenge the order granting
permission under Section 43 of the said Act.
6. I have gone through the impugned order. No perversity is
found. The view taken is a probable one based on material available on
record. There is no reason to interfere.
7. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Ad-interim/interim relief, if any granted earlier, stands vacated. No
order as to costs.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 4
Checking your session…