[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Alka Navasu Bhoir Alias Kavita ... vs M/S. Metacled Industries And Anr on 16 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:10626
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1238 OF 2023
Smt. Alka Navasu Bhoir @ Kavita Kusumakar Pawade
and Others ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Metacled Industries and Others ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1239 OF 2023
Smt. Alka Navasu Bhoir Alias Kavita Kusumkar Pawade
and Others ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Exhault Engineering and Others ...Respondents
------------
Mr. Raju Suryavanshi for Petitioner.
Mr. A. V. Anturkar for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 5th December, 2025
Pronounced on : 16th December, 2025.
Judgment :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent and taken up
for final disposal. Both Petitions raise identical issues and were taken
up for hearing together. Common submissions were canvassed and the
Petitions are being disposed of by common judgment.
2. For factual clarity, the facts of W.P. No. 1238 of 2023 are
referred. The Petition challenges the order of Maharashtra Revenue
Sairaj 1 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
Tribunal [for short "Tribunal"] dismissing the revision filed by the
present Petitioner against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer [for short
"SDO"] dated 26th August, 2022 rejecting the Petitioner's application
seeking declaration of acquisition of right of re-purchase of the subject
property on account of violation of Section 63-1A of the Maharashtra
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short, "Tenancy Act"].
3. The Petitioner's application was filed on 17 th May, 2022 before
the SDO contending that their pre-decessor Navsu Bhoir was the
owner of subject land bearing Gat No. 122, which was sold to the
Respondent No 1 on 15th May, 2007 vide registered sale deed for
industrial use. Accordingly the revenue records were mutated. The
Respondent No. 1 did not put the land for bona fide industrial use
within the prescribed period of 15 years from the date of purchase i.e.
from 15th May, 2007 to 15th May, 2022, resulting in violation of Section
63-1A of Tenancy Act.
4. The Respondent No. 1 resisted the application by filing two
Affidavits. It was contended that only part of the land was conveyed by
the Petitioner's pre-decessor despite being aware of the entire land
requirement for industrial purpose. The Respondent No 1 has the
intent to put the land to industrial use and the survey officer has
carried out measurement of the land, N.A permission was obtained,
building permission has been obtained. The Respondent No. 1 sought
Sairaj 2 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
extension of one year time period.
5. On 23rd August, 2022, after the matter was closed for orders, by
SDO, a report came to be filed by the Tahsildar stating that there was
no construction on the subject land and the same was not put to any
industrial use.
6. The SDO observed that the Respondent No. 1 had filed an
application on 9th July, 2021 under Section 44 of Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 for obtaining construction permission and sanad.
The Collector on 19th July, 2021 had forwarded the application to
Tahsildar/Assistant Director, Town Planning, who by communication
dated 18th April, 2022 had called upon the City Survey Officer to carry
out measurement and demarcation of boundaries pursuant to which
necessary recommendation would be made for final demarcation.
Noting the steps taken by the Respondent No. 1 and the COVID-19
pandemic situation, the SDO observed that the Respondent No. 1
intend to put the land to industrial use for which necessary procedure
has been started by Respondent No. 1. The SDO noted that the G.R
dated 1st January, 2016 provides for levying on non-agricultural tax of
2% after expiry of period of five years from date of purchase. The SDO
accordingly granted extension of one year subject to payment of non
agricultural tax within period of 15 days.
7. As against this, Revision came to be filed before the Tribunal
Sairaj 3 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act. The Tribunal by the impugned
order dated 8th December, 2022 considered the orders of the Hon'ble
Apex Court passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020
extending the period of limitation due to the national widespread of
COVID-19 pandemic and held that concession needs to be given to the
Respondent No 1. The Tribunal held the Petitioner's application to be
pre-mature and liable for rejection. The Tribunal further held that the
Respondent No 1 had sincerely started industrial activity which has
been obstructed by the Petitioners and though possession was given, it
was stated that the Petitioners are in possession of the subject land. It
observed that there was non-co-operation by the Petitioners during
measurement of the land pursuant to the partition effected among the
co-owners and even Civil Suit No. 92 of 2022 was filed before the Civil
Court for injunction against the Respondent No 1A for not carrying out
any development in the land. The Tribunal opined that the Petitioners
were creating obstacles in starting industrial use whereas the
Respondent No 1 is in the process of obtaining necessary permission
and dismissed the Revision Application.
8. Mr. Suryavanshi, Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that
Respondent No. 1 has suppressed the fact that the Respondent No 1
has alienated the land in favour of Respondent No 3 on 10 th August,
2021. He submits that the documents sought to be produced along
Sairaj 4 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
with the Affidavit-in-reply were not part of proceedings before the
authorities. He would further submit that the SDO has noted that only
application for permissions were filed in the year 2021 which does not
constitute land putting to industrial use as contemplated by the
explanation of Section 63-1A. He would further submit that there was
no power vested in the SDO to grant extension of one year for putting
the land to industrial use. He would further submit though the order of
SDO requires payment of non agricultural tax within 15 days, the same
has been deposited on 29th September, 2022. He would point out the
Tahsildhar's report stating that there is no activity carried out on the
land. He would rely upon the decision in the case of Tata Chemicals
Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra1.
9. Per contra, Mr. Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition Nos. 1238 of 2023 and 1239 of 2023
submits that the subject land was purchased in the year 2007 and
therefore the unamended provisions of Section 63-1A of Tenancy Act
would apply. He would submit that the unamended provisions provides
for re-purchase by the vendor in event the land is not put to bona fide
industrial use and the application did not seek resumption of land but
repurchase of land. He would submit that taking note of Covid
pandemic, the Hon'ble Apex Court had extended the period of
1 2023 Supreme (Online) (Bom) 14267.
Sairaj 5 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
limitation, which benefit is required to be given to the Respondent No
1.
10. Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent
No. 1 in Writ Petition Nos. 1238 of 2023 and 1239 of 2023 submits that
the application itself was pre-mature due to extension of limitation
granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3
of 2020. He has taken this Court in detail through the various orders
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court granting extension not only to
judicial and quasi judicial proceedings but also where the statute
prescribed the time for certain acts. He submits that there is no
machinery provided for repurchase of the land under the unamended
provisions of Section 63-1A of Tenancy Act and therefore, the remedy
of Petitioner lies before the Civil Court. He would submit that in the
case of Sonali Sandeep Pudake vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2,
the Nagpur Bench of this Hon'ble Court had given the benefit of
exclusion of limitation even to the administrative order although it had
held that the order in question appears to be quasi-judicial. He would
submit that Hon'ble Tribunal has specifically held that obstacles have
been created by the Petitioners by filing civil suit as well as by refusing
to co-operate in demarcation.
11. In rejoinder, Mr. Suryavanshi would submit that it is not
2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2431.
Sairaj 6 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
necessary for the Petitioner to approach the Civil Court as under
Section 84CC of Tenancy Act, the Collector upon breach of any
condition subject to which permission to transfer land was granted
under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act is empowered to hold an inquiry
and pass appropriate orders.
12. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
13. The Petitioner's application did not seek relief of resumption of
land by the Collector, but a declaration as to the Petitioner's
entitlement to re-purchase, which arose upon the expiry of period of
15 years on ground of non compliance of Section 63-1A of Tenancy Act.
The Petitioners were therefore, conscious of the fact that the
unamended provisions of Section 63-1A of Tenancy Act were applicable
as the Sale Deed was of the year 2007. The amendment to Section 63-
1A of Tenancy Act investing the Collector with the power of
resumption on violation of Section 63-1A of Tenancy Act was
introduced in the year 2016.
14. This Court in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. The State of
Maharashtra (supra) while considering the provisions of Section 47A of
the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 which is
similar to Section 63-1A of Tenancy Act, had taken the view that the
statutory position as on the date of Collector's sanction is required to
be considered as in that case, the sale deeds were of the year 2007-08
Sairaj 7 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
and Collector's sanction was given in the year 2007.
15. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem in present case that
the unamended provisions of Section 63-1A apply which gives right of
re-purchase to the original vendor. That being the position, there was
no requirement of seeking relief of resumption of land and the relief of
re-purchase is in consonance with the statutory requirement.
16. The unamended provisions of Section 63-1A required the
cumulative satisfaction of two conditions (a) expiry of period of fifteen
years from date of purchase and (b) the land not being put to bonafide
industrial use. Considering the timelines in the present case, as the
alienation in favour of the Respondent No 1 had taken place on 15 th
May, 2007, ordinarily the period of 15 years would expire on 14 th May,
2022 and if the land was not put to industrial use, the right of re-
purchase would accrue to the vendor. However, the intervening
circumstance of Covid pandemic has changed the colour of the
satisfaction envisaged while computing the period of 15 years. The
national lockdown is one of the defence taken by the Respondent No 1
and also constitutes one of the grounds of rejection of revision
application by the Tribunal, which is required to be tested.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of
2020 took judicial note of the prevailing Covid pandemic situation and
passed various orders under Article 142 of Constitution of India to
Sairaj 8 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
obviate the difficulties faced by the lawyers and litigants by reason of
the statutory limitations. Vide order dated 23rd March, 2020, the
Hon'ble Apex Court extended the period of limitation for filing
petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings till further
orders. By order of 10th July, 2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that
Section 29A , Section 23(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not prescribe
period of limitation but fixes a time to do certain acts and extended
the time limit prescribed under the said enactments. By order of 23 rd
September, 2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court excluded the period from
15th March, 2020 to 2nd October, 2021 in computing the period
prescribed in Section 29A, Section 23(4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and any other laws which prescribe period of limitation for
instituting the proceedings, outer limits within which the Tribunal or
Court can condone the delay and termination of proceedings.
18. By the final order of 10th January, 2022, in view of the second
surge of Covid 19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that
period from 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 shall stand
excluded for computing the period of limitation as may be prescribed
under any general or special laws in respect of judicial or quasi-judicial
Sairaj 9 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
proceedings and also stand excluded in computing the period
prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and
provisos (b) and (c) of Section138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
and any other law which prescribe period of limitation for instituting
the proceedings, outer limits, within which the Court or Tribunal can
condone the delay or terminate the proceedings.
19. The above orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court would indicate that
the judicial notice was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the
prevalent situation due to Covid pandemic severely restricting the
operations and movements and extended the period of limitation not
only for the purpose of judicial and quasi judicial proceedings but also
in respect of the time prescribed by the statute for carrying out certain
acts under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Commercial
Courts Act.
20. I see no reason to deprive the Respondent No. 1 of the benefit of
extensions granted by orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court by carving out
an exception for cases under the Tenancy Act, where time limit was
fixed by statute for putting the land to specific use. Upon extension
being granted, while computing the period of 15 years, the period from
15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 will have to be excluded. When
so excluded, the Respondent No. 1 would be ipso facto entitled to
Sairaj 10 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
extension of two years and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer even if it
grants extension of period of one year is immaterial. The Tribunal by
granting the benefit of extension has held the application to be pre-
mature which does not warrant interference.
21. As the Tribunal had upheld the finding of SDO that the
Petitioner's application was premature, it was not necessary for the
Tribunal to render findings on merits. As the application was held to be
pre-mature, the right of the Petitioners to file appropriate proceedings
after expiry of the period was not foreclosed. Though an issue was
raised as regards the maintainability of the application before the SDO,
it is not necessary to decide the issue of maintainability as firstly no
such contention was raised before the authorities and secondly the
application itself has been held to be pre-mature.
22. Insofar as sale to Respondent No. 3 is concerned, Mr. Suryavanshi
has not pointed out any statutory embargo on alienation of property
within period of 15 years. Similarly the contention of delayed payment
of N.A. tax is irrelevant if period stands extended.
23. In view of the above discussion, there is no warrant for
interference with the impugned order dated 8th December, 2022 in
exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In event,
the Petitioners seek to invoke their right after expiry of statutory
period, the concerned authority to consider the application afresh
Sairaj 11 of 12
WP-1238-2023 (final).doc
without being influenced by the earlier orders of SDO and the Tribunal.
24. The Petition is dismissed with the above observations. Rule
stands discharged in above terms.
25. Nothing survives for consideration in pending Applications, if
any, and the same stands dismissed.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
26. At this stage, a request is made for continuation of the interim
relief, which was in operation in favor of the Plaintiff since 2 nd January,
2024. Interim relief is extended for period of six weeks from today.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 12 of 12
