MAHINDRA LIFESPACE DEVELOPERS LTDversusTHE ADDL TAHASILDAR AND AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL AND ORS

                                                                     24-WP9671-2026.DOC

                                                                                Santosh

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 9671 OF 2026

                      Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd.                  ...Petitioner
                                        Versus
                      The Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural
                      Land Tribunal, Haveli, Pune and Ors               …Respondents

                      Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Parag Kabadi,
                           Ms. Anshita Sethi i/by DSK Legal, for Petitioner.
                      Mrs. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent No.1.
                      Dr. Ranjit Thorat, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Sandeep S.
                           Salunkhe, for Respondent Nos.2 to 15.
                      Mr. Atharva Dandekar i/by Mr. Hitendra Parab, for Respondent
                           No.24.

                                                  CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                  DATED:     21st SEPTEMBER, 2026

                      Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.


                      2.   The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 16 th

SANTOSH               June, 2026 passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT),
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.30
                      Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune.
21:27:13 +0530




                      3.   By the said order an application preferred by the petitioner

                      raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the

                      application under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and

                      Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the MT&AL Act’), was rejected.



                                                    1/6
                                                24-WP9671-2026.DOC

4.   By the said application, the petitioner had prayed that the

Tribunal may frame and decide preliminary issue regarding the

maintainability of the application, alongside a prayer for the

dismissal of the application under Section 32G as not

maintainable.


5.   By the impugned order, the ALT held that the aspect

whether the predecessor-in-title of the respondent Nos.2 to 15

was a tenant in respect of the subject land was required to be

decided at the stage of final hearing of the application under

Section 32G and the said aspect cannot be decided at a

preliminary stage.


6.   Mr.   Godbole,   the   learned   Senior   Advocate   for   the

petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to an order passed

by this Court on 12th March, 2025 condoning the delay in

preferring an appeal against the certification of the Mutation

Entry No.1388, which according to Mr. Godbole, forms the basis

of the claim for fixing the purchase price of the subject land. It

was submitted that, this Court has passed serious strictures

against the Sub-Divisional Officer, who had condoned the delay

of about 70 years.


7.   The second limb of the submissions of Mr. Godbole was

that, in the intervening period, the State Government has
                               2/6
                                                24-WP9671-2026.DOC

issued a Notification on 2nd January, 2009 under Section 88(1)

(b) of the MT&AL Act, 1948 and thereby the areas comprised in

the limits of Nashik Municipal Corporation and Pimpri-

Chinchwad Municipal Corporation have been reserved for non-

agricultural development, such as residential, commercial, and

recreational uses or designated for public purposes or for

industrial user in the Final Development Plans of the said

Corporation sanctioned under Section 31 of the Maharashtra

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act, 1966”),

except the lands held by the tenants. It was urged, in view of

the aforesaid Notification, the provisions of the MT&AL Act,

including Section 32G thereof, do not apply to the subject land.

A reference was made to the instrument executed in the year

1955 to substantiate the claim that the predecessor-in-title of

the respondent Nos.2 to 15 ceased to be a tenant. It was,

therefore, submitted that the ALT could not have straightaway

rejected the application raising objections to the maintainability

of the proceeding under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act.


8.   Mr.   Thorat,   the   learned   Senior   Advocate    for   the

respondents, countered the submissions on behalf of the

petitioner. It was urged that, there is no period of limitation for

filing an application under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act. By

                               3/6
                                               24-WP9671-2026.DOC

the operation of law a tenant who was in possession of the

agricultural land on the Tiller’s Day, is deemed to have

purchased the said land. In the application questioning the

maintainability of the proceedings under Section 32G, the

petitioner has raised all sorts of objections. An interim order

passed by this Court in writ petition arising out of RTS

proceedings cannot be pressed into service to defeat the

statutory right of the tenants under Section 32G of the Act. At

any rate, the said question is rooted in facts and could not have

been decided at the threshold and, thus, the ALT was justified

in rejecting the application.


9.   I have perused the material on record. The implications of

the issuance of a Notification under Section 88(1)(b) of the

MT&AL Act are well settled. Once such a Notification is issued,

the provisions contained in the MT&AL Act, 1948 cease to

operate qua the lands covered under the said Notification. (S. N.

Kamble vs. Sholapur Borough Municipality1). In the case at

hand, the issue that requires examination by the ALT is,

whether in view of the Notification dated 2 nd January, 2009, the

provisions of the MT&AL Act ceased to apply to the subject land.

Undoubtedly, for the determination of the said question, the


1    AIR 1966 SC 538.
                                4/6
                                                 24-WP9671-2026.DOC

issue as to whether the subject land was in the occupation of

the tenants as of the Tiller’s day was required to be determined.


10.   However, having regard to the period that has elapsed

since the certification of the mutation entry No.1399, on the

basis of which registered instruments seem to have been

executed, the question of applicability of the said Notification to

the subject land, ought to have been decided as a preliminary

issue. The application could not have been rejected straightway.

The determination of the said question would facilitate the ALT

to proceed further and if it is held that the predecessor-in-tile of

respondent Nos.2 to 15 was in the occupation of the subject

land as the tenant thereof, proceed to determine the application

under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act.


11.   In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is inclined

to party allow the petition and direct the ALT to frame and

decide the issue as to whether the application under Section

32G of the MT&AL Act is not maintainable in view of the

Notification dated 2nd January, 2009, as a preliminary issue.


12.   The ALT shall permit the parties to lead evidence on the

said issue and thereafter decide the same on its own merits and

in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.


                                5/6
                                           24-WP9671-2026.DOC

13.   The petition stands disposed.


                                      [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                              6/6