Govind Goma Gaikar, Smt. Laxmi Govind ... vs Gopal Babu Patil (Decd. Through Lhrs) ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1035 Bom

Bombay High Court

Govind Goma Gaikar, Smt. Laxmi Govind ... vs Gopal Babu Patil (Decd. Through Lhrs) ... on 30 January, 2026

 2026:BHC-AS:4769

                                                                                 WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc


                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                  WRIT PETITION NO.4899 OF 2024

                       Shri. Govind Goma Gaikar,
                       Smt. Laxmi Govind Gaikar
                       (Both Decd.) Through Lrs.)
                       Shri. Shankar Govind Gaikar & Ors.                           ....Petitioners
                              Versus
                       Shri. Gopal Babu Patil
                       (Decd.Through Lrs.)
                       Smt. Rukmini Gopal Patil & Ors.                              ....Respondents


                             Mr. Abhay S. Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.
                             Rushikesh G. Bhagat i/b. Anilkumar Joshi, for Petitioners.

                             Mr. Mahendra Agavekar, for Respondents.


                                                   CORAM:     SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

                                                   DATE:      JANUARY 30, 2026

                       ORAL JUDGEMENT:

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the

parties, the Petition is heard finally.

Context and Factual Background:

2. This Petition impugns a Judgement and Order dated January

13, 2020 ("Impugned Judgement") passed by the Learned Maharashtra

Digitally Revenue Tribunal ("Learned Tribunal"), which allowed a Revision signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN

PALKAR Date:

2026.01.30 17:41:38 JANUARY 30, 2026 +0530 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

Application filed by the Respondents, who are the legal heirs of Late

Gopal Babu Patil (collectively, "Patils").

3. The Petitioners, who are legal heirs of Late Govind Goma

Gaikar and Late Laxmi Govind Gaikar (collectively, "Gaikars"), contend

that the land parcel falling in Survey No.78, admeasuring 0-41-0 H.R.P.

in Village Ariwali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad ( "Subject Land") falls

within their entitlement, having acquired it first from the Patils and

later through a public process run under the Maharashtra Tenancy And

Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("MTAL Act").

4. The Gaikars contend that the Subject Land originally belonged

to one Mr. Patankar, and the Patils, as agricultural tenants, became

deemed purchasers of the Subject Land under Section 32G of the

MTAL Act. The Patils' ownership was recorded by Mutation Entry

No.556 dated November 1, 1971.

5. On May 2, 1977, the Gaikars and the Patils executed an

agreement for sale ("Agreement for Sale"). Possession of the Subject

Land is said to have been handed over by the Patils to the Gaikars.

Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the Patils are

said to have filed a suit against the Gaikars for a mandatory injunction

against interference with the Subject Land. It is stated that the suit

came to be dismissed for default on June 10, 1996.

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

6. Meanwhile, on December 1, 1995, the Gaikars filed a Tenancy

Complaint No. 5 of 1995 under Section 84C of the MTAL Act with the

Tahsildar, Panvel, claiming that the transfer of the Subject Land had

been bad in law by virtue of Sections 27 and 43 of the MTAL Act. By an

Order dated April 25, 1997 ( "Section 84C Order"), the Tahsildar, Panvel

allowed the complaint and held that the transfer of the Subject Land by

the Patils was illegal in view of Section 43 of the MTAL Act.

7. Therefore, the Tahsildar issued a proclamation of the Subject

Land on December 20, 1999 since the land now vested in the State. On

the same day, the Gaikars applied for purchase of the Subject Land in

response to the proclamation. Pursuant to the response to the

proclamation, the Subject Land came to be sold to the Gaikars by order

dated February 24, 2000 ("Allotment Order").

8. On October 31, 2000, the Patils challenged the Section 84C

Order by filing an Appeal under Section 74 of the MTAL Act being

Appeal No.17 of 2000. This Appeal came to be dismissed by an order

dated December 30, 2000, passed by the Sub-Division Officer on the

ground of delay in filing the appeal. Revision Application No.185-B of

2001 under Section 76 of the MTAL Act was filed before the Learned

Tribunal by the Patils. The Revision Application came to be allowed by

the Learned Tribunal by an order dated October 29, 2009, concluding

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

that the matter ought to be heard afresh since the dismissal of the

Appeal was not by way of a reasoned order.

9. On March 21, 2012, the Appeal against the Section 84C Order,

upon remand, was re-heard by the Sub-Division Officer. The Section

84C Order was set aside ("Remand Order"). It was held that the

unregistered Agreement for Sale did not constitute a sale or a transfer

for the provisions of the MTAL Act to have been violated by effecting a

prohibited transfer. The upshot of this development is that the Subject

Land had not vested back in the State and therefore, the proclamation

and the subsequent sale of the Subject Land to the Gaikars stood

undermined.

10. Being aggrieved by the Remand Order, the Gaikars filed a

Revision Application before the Learned Tribunal, which, by an Order

dated October 31, 2015, remanded the matter afresh on the premise

that yet again, the order, this time allowing the Appeal, was

unreasoned. On remand, the Appeal was heard yet again, and was

dismissed, this time, by an order dated May 2, 2016, on the ground of

unexplained delay on the part of the Patils in filing the Appeal. This

order was challenged again before the Learned Tribunal in Revision

Application No.127 of 2016, which was disposed of by an Order dated

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

July 4, 2017, with a fresh remand by consent, on the ground, yet again,

that reasons had not been given.

11. The matter was heard yet again and by an Order dated

September 10, 2018, the delay was condoned and the Appeal was

dismissed on merits, confirming that the Section 84C Order was proper

and lawful. Eventually, this order was challenged by the Patils before

the Learned Tribunal, which passed the Impugned Order dated

January 13, 2020, holding that the Agreement for Sale was not an

instrument of transfer. Therefore, it follows that the vesting of the

Subject Land in the State and the subsequent transfer of the Subject

Land to the Gaikars was untenable.

Contentions of the Parties:

12. I have heard at length, Mr. Abhay Khandeparkar, Learned

Senior Advocate for the Gaikars, and Mr. Mahendra Agavekar, Learned

Advocate on behalf of the Patils. With their assistance, I have

examined the record.

13. The key contention on behalf of the Gaikars is that the Patils

had been in need of money and had executed an Agreement for Sale on

May 2, 1977 with the Gaikars. The Patils are said to have sold the land

to the Gaikars, with possession too having been handed over to Gaikars

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

for a consideration of Rs.6,000/-, of which, Rs.5,800/- was already

paid. The Gaikars contend that against execution of the Agreement for

Sale, possession of the Subject Land was also transferred to the Gaikars

and the possession receipt of the same date would evidence such fact.

Therefore, the transfer was completed under Section 53A of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("TOP Act").

14. However, Mr. Khandeparkar would submit, such transfer was

contrary to Section 43 of the MTAL Act. Therefore, owing to such

conflict, the transfer was invalid. Therefore, the vesting of the Subject

Land in the State, free from all encumbrances, was absolute and valid,

in terms of Section 84C of the MTAL Act, Mr. Khandeparkar would

contend. Therefore, upon such vesting of title to the Subject Land in

the State, the issuance of the proclamation and the consequent

Allotment Order in compliance with the procedures stipulated under

the MTAL Act, has validly vested the Subject Land in the Gaikars,

necessitating interference by this Court in exercise of the writ

jurisdiction with the untenable Impugned Order that is contrary to the

MTAL Act.

15. The Appeal by the Patils questioning the Section 84C Order,

had been filed after almost three years, Mr. Khandeparkar would point

out. He would submit that without challenging the Allotment Order, it

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

was wrong to question the title in favour of Gaikars. Finally, Mr.

Khandeparkar would contend that the Learned Tribunal exceeded the

jurisdiction under Section 76 of the MTAL Act because the Learned

Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence on record and took a view

different from view of the final fact-finding authority. Merely because

another view is possible, it is not appropriate for the Learned Tribunal

to substitute the impugned view with its own view.

16. Mr. Agavekar, on behalf of the Respondents would submit that

the main issue that falls for consideration is whether there had been a

breach of Section 43 of the MTAL Act as alleged by the Gaikars. It is

contended by the Gaikars that the Subject Land had been transferred

by the grandfather of the Patils, and in the Agreement for Sale, the

Patils and the Gaikars have explicitly agreed that permission of the

State Government would need to be obtained to effect the transfer. It

was explicitly agreed that if the permission were refused, the

transaction would be reversed. Indeed, no permission was obtained for

the transaction. If the Gaikars were right about the transfer under TOP

Act having been completed, it would have been open to the Gaikars to

file a suit for specific performance, but the Gaikars never did so.

17. The Patils would contend that Section 43 of the MTAL Act

prohibits the sale of property without sanction from the Collector, when

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

the subject matter of the transfer is land vesting in an agricultural

tenant under Section 32G of the MTAL Act. Therefore, the Patils would

contend that for the restrictions under Section 43 of the MTAL Act to

apply, the jurisdictional fact necessary would be a sale, gift, exchange or

mortgage of such land. It was the Gaikars who had initiated action

under Section 84C of the MTAL Act on the basis of photocopies of the

unregistered Agreement for Sale to allege a breach of Section 43 of the

MTAL Act. Indeed, Mr. Agavekar would submit, there had been no

transfer in the eyes of the law from the perspective of Section 43 of the

MTAL Act. No sale deed had been executed, no agreement had been

registered, and the possession receipt cannot be regarded as a transfer.

Therefore, the Subject Land could not be considered to be transfer at all

for the provisions of Section 43 of the MTAL Act to be attracted.

18. The Patils further contend that the unregistered Agreement for

Sale was effected way back in 1977. The proceedings initiated by the

Gaikars were self-destructive proceedings, seeking nullification of the

very contract on the basis of which they claimed possession and that

too was initiated in 1995, about 18 years later. Therefore, they contend

no interference is called for in what is a legally sound and valid decision

that there had been no transfer for the provisions of Section 43 of the

MTAL Act to have at all been attracted.

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

Analysis and Findings:

19. At the threshold, the relevant provisions of the MTAL Act ought

to be noticed, and are extracted below:

Section 43:

43. (1) No land purchased by a tenant under section 32, 32F, 2 32I, 32O, 3 33C or 43-ID or sold to any person under section 32P or 64 shall be transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment without the previous sanction of the Collector.

Such sanction shall be given by the Collector in such circumstances, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed by the State Government:

Provided that, no such sanction shall be necessary where the land is to be mortgaged in favour of Government or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the  Bombay Co- operative Societies Act, 1925, for raising a loan for effecting any improvement of such land :

Provided further that, no such previous sanction shall be necessary for the sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment of the land in respect of which ten years have elapsed from the date of purchase or sale of land under the sections mentioned in this sub-section, subject to the conditions that,--

(a) before selling the land, the seller shall pay a nazarana equal to forty times the assessment of the land revenue to the Government;

(b) the purchaser shall be an agriculturist;

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

(c) the purchaser shall not hold the land in excess of the ceiling area permissible under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961; and

(d) the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmention and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 shall not be violated .

(2) Any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be invalid.

[Emphasis Supplied]

20. It can be seen that Section 43 is a provision that prohibits

transfer of land that has vested in an agricultural tenant. The

agricultural tenant who was tilling the land, benefits from the

provisions of the MTAL Act by becoming the owner of such land by

operation of the special provisions that escalate his interests from being

a tenant to being the landowner. Such benefits come with strings

attached. Not only is such tenant-acquirer of the land not expected to

profit from the land by selling it out immediately, it is apparent that

such a land acquirer is also expected to be vulnerable to the land being

grabbed by others, thereby negating the very objective of getting him to

be the owner of the land. Therefore, any transfer of such land requires

permission of the State. Without such permission, the transfer is

statutorily declared to be invalid.

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

21. Relevant extracts of Section 84C of the Act would also be

noteworthy:-

Section 84C.

84C. (1) Where in respect of the transfer or acquisition of any land made on or after the commencement of the Amending Act, 1955, the Mamlatdar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of this Act, the Mamlatdar shall issue a notice and hold an inquiry as provided for in section 84B and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is or is not invalid.

(2) If after holding such inquiry, the Mamlatdar comes to a conclusion, that the transfer or acquisition of land is invalid, he shall make an order declaring the transfer or acquisition to be invalid :

Provided that, *****

(3) On the declaration made by the Mamlatdar under sub-section (2),--

(a) the land shall be deemed to vest in the State Government, free from all encumbrances lawfully subsisting thereon on the date of such vesting, and shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (4); the encumbrances shall be paid out of the occupancy price in the manner provided in section 32Q for the payment of encumbrances out of the purchase price of the sale of land but the right of the holder of such encumbrances to proceed against the person liable, for the

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

enforcement of his right in any other manner, shall not be affected;

(b) the amount which was received by the transferor as the price of the land shall be deemed to have been forfeited to the State Government and it shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue; and

(c) the Mamlatdar shall, in accordance with the provisions of section 63A determine the reasonable price of the land.

(4) After determining the reasonable price, the Mamlatdar shall grant the land on new and impartible tenure and on payments of occupancy price equal to the reasonable price determined under sub-section (3) in the prescribed manner in the following order of priority :--

(i) the tenant in actual possession of the land;

(ii) the persons or bodies in the order given in the priority list :

Provided that *****

(5) & (6) *****

[Emphasis Supplied]

22. Section 84C provides the framework of consequences for a

breach of, among others, the provisions of Section 43 of the MTAL Act.

The Mamlatdar may, either on his own motion or on an application

made by a person interested in the land, nullify the acquisition of the

land from the agricultural tenant who was made the owner by

operation of the Act. Such land would vest in the State and it is for the

State to then sell the land. Certain protections are also built in,

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

depending on size of the land and certain conditions, where even in the

case of a violative transfer, the beneficiary of the MTAL Act i.e. the

tenant-turned-owner has protections built in. The ingredients of such

protection are not relevant for this judgement and to avoid prolixity,

they are not elaborately discussed in detail.

23. Against this backdrop, the actions of the Gaikars have to be

examined from the standpoint of the extraordinary discretionary writ

jurisdiction of this Court.

24. In my opinion, the actions of the Gaikars are problematic on

multiple counts. First, the Gaikars seek nullification of the very

transaction that granted them interest in the Subject Land. They have

done this 18 years after such a transaction was executed by their

forefather with the Patils' forefather. The prohibitive sanction of

nullifying a transaction as a deterrent to the tenant-turned-landlord

being deprived of the land was sought to be made an aid in favour of

nullifying the very same transaction only to benefit from the

nullification by acquiring the same land from the State.

25. Second, the Gaikars were resourceful enough to have the

proclamation made and the Allotment Order issued in their very

favour. When the statute envisages invocation of Section 84C by a

person interested in the land, it envisages a beneficiary who has an

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

interest in the land to seek the statutory protection under Section 43. It

is inexplicable that the invocation of Section 84C is made by the party

against whose acquisition the provision guards the specially entitled

tiller.

26. Third, even if the proclamation and the Allotment Order in

Gaikars' favour were presumed to be a fortuitous and happy

coincidence, one cannot lose sight of the fact that this was a case of a

party to a transaction, who has a troubled relationship with the

counterparty, seeking to nullify the very transaction by which he

purported to become the owner, after which the only beneficiary of the

nullification is such displaced owner himself.

27. It is in this backdrop that one must examine whether a case is

made out for an exercise of the extraordinary discretion vested in the

writ court to come to the aid of the Gaikars. Since it is the Gaikars who

have invoked the jurisdiction of Section 43, it is quite fair to assess

whether the jurisdictional fact necessary for the drastic consequence of

the tiller-turned-owner being displaced from his benefits are in

existence. Therefore, it was completely in order for the Impugned

Order to have analysed if there had been a transfer of the nature

contemplated in Section 43, for the nullification claimed by the very

acquirer of the Subject Land to be attracted.

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

28. Towards this end, it is only fair to consider whether there had

been a registered transfer. Indeed, when the statute nullifies a transfer

of the Subject Land, it is a very special protection of the Subject Land.

Indeed, as a sanction and punishment of a violative transferor, the land

would vest in the State if the tiller-turned-owner were to violate the

prohibition. For such a provision to be turned on its head in its

objective, only to benefit the violative transferee at the expense of the

allegedly-violative transferor would be contrary to the very objective

and scheme of the MTAL Act.

29. When exercising the writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot be blind

to what commercial reality has transpired and who is seeking to benefit

at whose expense in the context of the legislative framework in which

the issues have arisen. In this case, the beneficiary is the person who

admittedly undertook a violative purchase - by having the transfer

declared to be violative, he has transposed his ownership from that of a

violative owner to a compliant owner, cutting out the allegedly violative

transferor alone.

30. When seen in that backdrop, the very Agreement for Sale

executed by the respective forefathers of Patils and Gaikars indeed

provided for a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the transfer -

the permission of the State. In the absence of such permission, the

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

Agreement for Sale itself became void and the transfer envisaged

therein never came about. On the other hand, if an otherwise-valid

transfer were to have taken place with no condition of permission being

contracted, and it were found out later that Section 43 had been

violated, then the provisions of Section 84C could have been pressed

into service by the Mamlatdar or by other person interested in the land.

However, when the instrument itself entailed a requirement to secure

approval under Section 43 as a precondition of transfer, and such

approval was not received, then evidently, no transfer could not have

validly effected

31. While the delay on the part of the Patils in appealing the Section

84C order is emphasised by the Gaikars, one cannot lose sight of the

fact that the Gaikars' interest in the land flows from their forefather

who had the foresight to contract the requirement of prior sanction of

the State, without which the agreement itself would not validly effect

any transfer. The invocation of Section 84C, nearly 18 years after the

Agreement for Sale, seeking nullification only to be able to acquire the

very same land appears to be a cynical reliance by Gaikars, who are the

very acquirers against whom Section 43 is intended to protect the

Patils.

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

32. The view in the Impugned Order, namely, that the Subject Land

was not transferred within the meaning of the law, for the drastic effect

of forfeiture of the Subject Land to come about, is a reasonable one.

There was nothing surreptitious about the Agreement for Sale - it

validly recognised that permission of the State would be necessary.

Such permission was not taken and no transfer took place.

33. The mere assertion that possession had been taken over

alongside the Agreement for Sale is of no value in demonstrating a

transfer that would otherwise be valid, but for the compliance with

MTAL Act. Compliance with the MTAL Act was an integral

requirement for any transfer to come about, and that not having been

done, the view expressed in the Impugned Order, namely, that there

was no transfer for purposes of Section 43 to warrant the drastic

consequence of Section 84C of the Act to operate against the Patils, is a

reasonable view that is far from arbitrary.

Conclusion:

34. In my opinion, for the aforesaid reasons, no interference is

called for and the Petition is dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged.

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar

WP.4899.2024 (J) - FINAL.doc

35. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be

taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's

website.

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

JANUARY 30, 2026 Aarti Palkar