[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Naresh Vishanath Kambli And Anr. vs Narayan Kashinath Bhuyal And Ors. on 25 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:14167
4-wp7602-2008 & connected.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7602 OF 2008
Digambar Shahu Patil ... Petitioner
V/s.
Narayan Kashinath Bhuyal & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2060 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7612 OF 2008
Naresh Vishwanath Kamble & Anr. ... Applicants
V/s.
Narayan Kashinath Bhuyal & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7612 OF 2008
Naresh Vishwanath Kamble & Anr. ... Applicants
V/s.
Narayan Kashinath Bhuyal & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Mayuresh Lagu with Mr. Sagar Patil for the
petitioner in both writ petitions.
Mr. Vishwajit Sawant, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Veerdhaval Kakade, Ms. Apurva Mahadik and Mr.
Prabhakar M. Jadhav for (heirs of respondent No.1)
respondent Nos.1A, 1B, and 2.
Smt. A.A. Purav, AGP for respondent No.4-State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 25, 2026
4-wp7602-2008 & connected.doc
P.C.:
1. Amendment granted by order dated 22 January 2026 in
Interim Application (St.) No.40346 of 2025 shall be carried out
forthwith.
2. For the reasons stated therein, Interim Application No.2060
of 2026 is allowed. Writ Petition No.7612 of 2008 is restored to
file and taken up for hearing and final disposal.
3. The present writ petitions bring into question the action
taken under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled
Tribes Act, 1974. The authorities functioning under this Act have
directed that possession of the land be taken away from the
petitioner and restored to the respondents.
4. The basic facts are not much in dispute, though their
interpretation is strongly contested. The petitioner claims that he is
in possession of the land on the basis of a lease said to have been
given by the father of the respondents. However, this lease is not a
registered document. Only a copy is shown. On the other hand, it
is admitted that the respondents belong to a Scheduled Tribe, and
therefore the protection of the Act is available to them. In the year
1999, the respondents approached the authority under the Act
seeking restoration of possession. This itself shows that according
to them, the land originally belonged to their family and was taken
away in a manner not permitted by law. The dispute therefore
turns on the nature of the petitioner's possession and whether it
can be protected or not.
4-wp7602-2008 & connected.doc
5. When the matter was taken before the Tehsildar, the
petitioner participated and filed his reply. The Tehsildar, however,
did not examine the issue independently in full depth. He relied
upon an earlier order passed in some other matter and came to the
conclusion that since there was no permission from the Collector
for such transaction, the petitioner could not continue in
possession. On that reasoning, the application of the respondents
was allowed. This order was then challenged before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal went a step further. It
examined the definition of the term "transfer" under the Act and
held that the concept of transfer is not limited only to valid or
registered transfers. The Tribunal also recorded that the petitioner
himself had admitted before the inquiry officer that possession was
taken under a lease from the respondents' father. Based on this,
the Tribunal held that even such a lease would fall within the
meaning of "transfer" under the Act.
6. The petitioner has strongly objected to this approach.
According to the petitioner, the lease deed was never registered.
Under general law, a lease affecting immovable property for a
certain period must be registered. If it is not registered, then it
does not create any legal right in the property. At the highest, the
petitioner says, his possession may be treated as unauthorized. If
that is so, then the respondents cannot use the special machinery
of Section 3 of the Act. Instead, they must file proper civil
proceedings for recovery of possession. In other words, the
submission is that the Act applies only when there is a legally
recognizable transfer, and not when the possession is merely
4-wp7602-2008 & connected.doc
unauthorised.
7. The respondents, however, have taken a different stand.
They rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Gulab Rao, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 21 and
Judgment in Public Interest Litigation No.120 of 2010 in case of
Adivasee Sarvangin Vikas Samitee Vs State of Maharashtra decided
on 12th July 2013 to contend that the Act uses very wide
language. According to them, even an unregistered lease would
fall within the words "any other disposition". Their argument is
that the Act is a welfare legislation meant to protect tribal lands.
Therefore, its provisions should not be read in a narrow manner. If
possession of tribal land has gone into the hands of a non-tribal by
any arrangement, even if informal, the Act permits restoration.
8. To resolve this dispute, it becomes necessary to carefully
read the definition of "transfer" under the Act. The definition is
quite wide. It includes transfer by act of parties, such as sale, gift,
exchange, mortgage, or lease. It also includes other forms like
court orders or recovery proceedings. Importantly, it also uses the
expression "any other disposition". This shows that the legislature
intended to cover various modes by which land of a tribal may
pass into the hands of a non-tribal. At the same time, the words
used in the definition cannot be read in isolation. They must be
understood in their proper context.
9. On a plain reading, the expression "any other disposition"
must take its meaning from the words which come before it based
on principle of Ejusdem generis. The earlier words refer to
4-wp7602-2008 & connected.doc
recognized forms of transfer where some right, title, or interest in
land is created or passed on. Therefore, applying the principle of
interpretation, the general words must be read in line with the
specific words. This means that "any other disposition" should also
refer to a transaction which results in some transfer of right or
interest in the land. The important question then is whether an
unregistered lease, which does not create legal rights under
general law, can still be treated as such a disposition under this
Act. This aspect goes to the root of the matter.
10. It is seen that the Tribunal has not examined this issue in
sufficient detail. It has proceeded mainly on the admission of
possession and on a broad reading of the definition. However, the
legal effect of an unregistered lease and whether it can be treated
as creating a transferable interest under this special law has not
been properly analysed. This requires closer examination. The
Tribunal ought to have considered whether mere possession under
an unregistered document is enough to attract the provisions of
the Act, or whether something more is required in law.
11. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the matter
requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. The findings recorded
earlier cannot be sustained as they stand. Therefore, the impugned
order dated 17 October 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal in the concerned appeals is set aside.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1
April 2026 at 11.00 a.m., so that the matter can proceed without
delay.
4-wp7602-2008 & connected.doc
13. The Tribunal shall decide the appeals afresh within a period
of three months from the date the parties appear before it. While
doing so, it shall specifically consider the nature of the alleged
lease, its legal effect, and whether it falls within the meaning of
"any other disposition" under the Act.
14. All contentions of both sides are kept open. The Tribunal
shall decide the matter independently, in accordance with law.
15. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
16. The interim relief which was in force during pendency of the
writ petition shall continue during pendency of the appeals before
the MRT.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
