Pandurang S/o Bandu Sasane & Ors. vs Rekha W/o. Dattatraya Patil & Ors.

. As both these Writ Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the Judgment and order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRT’), in Revision Nos.92/B, 93/B and 94/B of 2019 (Aurangabad) and common submissions are made, they are decided by this common Judgment.

The facts, in brief, concerning the matters are as follows:

The lands bearing Survey Nos.12 and 13 admeasuring 20 Acres, 25 Gunthas and 27 Acres, respectively, situated at village Naregaon, Tal. and Dist. Aurangabad were owned by Mohd. Mohiyuddin and Gayasuddin, respectively. Late Bandu Dharma Sasane (for short ‘late Bandu’) was in possession of the land Survey No.12 to the extent of 4 Acres and 5 Gunthas and Survey No.13 to the extent of 5 Acres and 16 Gunthas. The said survey numbers were subsequently converted into Gat No.20. Late Bandu was declared as protected tenant of the said land, of which he was in possession and he deposited the occupancy price with the concerned authorities. The Certificate declaring him as the protected tenant was issued. His name was mutated in the revenue records of the said agricultural lands. Late Bandu was in need of money and so, he took loan from the Respondents - Rashmi Mohanlal Jariwala and Shantiben Gangadhar Shaha. In lieu of loan, late Bandu gave his thumb impression on the blank paper and executed sale-deed of 1-Hectare and 1-R from Gat No.20 without permission of the Collector as required under Section 50B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘Tenancy Act’).

After the death of late Bandu, names of his legal heirs i.e. the Petitioners were mutated in the revenue records of the said agriculture land. They were in financial difficulty and they took loan from contesting Respondent- Rekha Dattatraya Patil and in lieu of the same, they gave the signatures and thumb impressions on the blank paper and the sale-deed was executed to the extent of 2-Hectares, 32-R from Gat No.20, without permission of the Collector as required under the said provision of the Tenancy Act. Subsequently, the Respondents - Rashmi Mohanlal Jariwala and Shantiben Gangadhar Shaha executed the registered sale-deed in favour of the Respondent – Rekha Dattatraya Patil for the said land admeasuring 1-Hectare, 1-R from the said Gat number.

The Petitioners filed the Application under Section 98C of the Tenancy Act before the Collector who by order dated 12.08.2013 directed the Respondent – Tahsildar to conduct appropriate inquiry and for disposal of the subject land in accordance with law. The Respondent -Rekha Dattatraya Patil filed Revision No.108/A/2013/A before the learned MRT. By the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2015, the learned MRT allowed the Revision, set aside the said order dated 12.08.2013 and gave liberty to the Petitioners to approach the competent authority for seeking the relief.

The Petitioners approached the Respondent - Tahsildar for necessary action pursuant to Section 98C of the Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar by order dated 13.06.2016 rejected the said Application which was filed to declare the sale transaction of the subject land as invalid.

The Respondent - Rekha Dattatraya Patil approached the Tahsildar for regularization of the sale-deeds which were executed without permission of the Collector. The Tahsildar by order dated 05.10.2016 directed the said Respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.5,57,000/-and Rs.2,78,500/-. The said Respondent accordingly deposited the amount and the Tahsildar regularized the transfer of the subject lands.

The Petitioners filed the Appeal before the Additional Collector against the said order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Tahsildar rejecting their Application. The Collector by order dated 25.09.2019 dismissed the Appeals and directed that the regularization would be subject to payment of 50% of Rs.5,84,01,000/- (i.e. prevalent rate on the date of payment) and further directed the initiation of disciplinary enquiry against the Tahsildar. Against the said order of the Collector, the Petitioners and the Respondent – Rekha Dattatraya Patil filed the above referred Revision Applications before the learned MRT, upon which the impugned Judgment and order came to be passed dismissing the Revision Applications of the Petitioners and allowing the Revision Application of Respondent – Rekha Dattatraya Patil and set aside the directions of the Collector in respect of payment of the said amount which was 50% of Rs.5,84,01,000/-.

Heard both the sides finally. With their assistance, perused the papers on record.

A) It was submitted by the learned Advocates for the Petitioners that, the impugned order passed by the learned MRT dismissing their Revisions and allowing the Revision of the Respondent – Rekha Dattatraya Patil was bad in law. The sale-deeds / sale transactions in respect of the said protected property without permission of the Collector were illegal. The amended provision of Section 98C was not applicable to the present proceedings. The Tahsildar without giving any notice to the Petitioners, accepted the amount for regularization of the transfer of subject lands and reviewed his earlier order. The Collector in the order which was challenged before the learned MRT had given detailed reasons as to how the Tahsildar committed illegality in accepting less amount towards the regularization. The learned MRT had passed interim order restraining the Transferee from alienating the subject property, however the Transferee executed the sale-deed in favour of one developer. They submitted that, the impugned Judgment and the order passed by the learned MRT be quashed and set aside. In support of their submissions, they relied on the Judgments in (i) Uttam Namdeo Mahale v. Vithal Deo and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 73 (ii) Writ Petition No.744 of 1992, Kashinath Vishwanath alias Krishnath S/o Pandurang Thodsare (dead) through LRs v. Dhondiram Mahalingappa Shiral, decided on 29.02.2024, and (iii) Writ Petition No.7263 of 2014 Sandip Aniruddh Jadhav and Another v. The State of Maharashtra and Others, decided on 28.03.2025.

B) It was submitted by the learned Advocate for the contesting Respondents / Transferees of the subject land that, the provision of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act prescribes the limitation of two (2) years. The Petitioners filed the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities after a period of so many years. The sale-deeds were executed in favour of the Respondents and the mutation was also done and just to extract money, the proceedings are being filed by the Petitioners. The order by the Tahsildar permitting the Transferees to deposit the amount for regularization of the transfer of subject lands was not the order reviewing his earlier order. It was the separate proceeding after dismissal of the Application filed by the Petitioners. It was the question between the Transferees and the Government and therefore, there was no question of issuing any notice to the Petitioners. If this Court comes to the conclusion that the order of the Collector directing 50% of Rs.5,84,01,000/- which was the rate prevalent in the year - 2016 when the amount was deposited by the transferees is proper, the Respondents were ready to deposit the said amount. The Petitioners did not bring to the notice of the learned MRT that, the subject property was alienated and there was contravention of the interim order. The Petitioners can approach the learned MRT, if there was any breach of interim order. When the Petitioners claimed that, they were illegally possessed, the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act come into play which provides for two (2) years limitation and to avoid the limitation, the proceedings under Section 98C of the Tenancy Act are filed by the Petitioners. As all the things are clear, this Court can modify the impugned order instead of remanding the matter back to the learned MRT. The Respondents - Transferees have deposited the amount as directed by the Tahsildar. The proceedings are in continuation and therefore, the amended provision of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act would apply to the case at hand. The Government came up with the policy to waive 40% Nazrana amount under the Tenancy Act, wherein 10 years period have lapsed. One of the Respondents - Transferees is the senior citizen and therefore, the matter may not be remanded. He submitted that, the Petitions be dismissed and the order of the learned MRT be upheld by making certain modifications. In support of his submissions, he relied on the Government Circular dated 16.07.2026 and the Judgment in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, 1997 (6) SCC 71, and Dnyanoba Deorao Ugle & Others vs. Shaikh Hussain (deceased) through LRs & another, 2000 (1) Bom. C. R. 11.

The proceedings are governed by the provisions of Tenancy Act. The Petitioners submitted the Application dated 25.08.2008 to the Collector, Aurangabad, for invoking the provision of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act to declare the transfer or acquisition of the agricultural land admeasuring 3-Hectares, 33-R from Gat No.20 at village Naregaon, Tal. and Dist. Aurangabad, which were sold vide sale-deed dated 12.03.1992, 30.04.1992 and 15.11.1998 in favour of the Respondents as invalid. Their father Bandu Dharma Sasane was declared as tenant of the agricultural land bearing Gat No.20 at Naregaon, Tal and Dist. Aurangabad. The Respondents – Rashmi Mohanlal Jariwal and Shantiben Gangadhar Shaha, in connivance with the Government Authorities got the sale deed dated 15.11.1998 executed from the Orig. tenant – late Bandu in their favour. Subsequently, the said Respondents - Rashmi Mohanlal Jariwal and Shantiben Gangadhar Shaha executed the sale-deed in respect of the said agricultural land in favour of Respondent – Rekha Dattatraya Patil. Thereafter, on 12.03.1992 another sale-deed got executed by the said Respondents. All the sale-deeds in respect of the land were executed without the sanction from the Collector, and therefore, the same were illegal and invalid. The Petitioners prayed for necessary action under the provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act.

The said Application was considered by the Deputy Collector, Aurangabad, and by order dated 12.08.2013, after hearing both the sides, allowed the Application and directed the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, to take necessary action for breach of the provisions of Section 50B of the Tenancy Act and further directed to take necessary action under the provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act and Rule 11 and 48 of the Rules framed thereunder. The said order was challenged by the Respondent - Rekha Dattatraya Patil before the learned MRT in case No.108/A/2013/A and the Petitioners also filed the proceedings before the learned MRT in the case No.67/A/2014/A. By the common Judgment and order dated 14.10.2015, the learned MRT allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent - Rekha Dattatraya Patil and partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioners and set aside the order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Aurangabad and rejected the Petitioners prayer for handing over the possession of the land to them and granted liberty to the Petitioners to approach the competent authority for the reliefs they were seeking for.

Pursuant to the said order by the learned MRT, the Petitioners approached the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, to invoke the provisions under Section 98C of the Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar by order dated 13.06.2016 rejected the Application of the Petitioners and refused to declare that, the sale-deeds were illegal and transfer of the land was invalid. The said order was challenged by the Petitioners before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad in case No.2018/LR/TNC/Mauje Naregaon/A-06. In the interregnum, the Respondents – Transferees approached the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, to regularize the transfer in view of the amended provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act and the Tahsildar Aurangabad by order dated 05.10.2016 passed the order of regularization as 50% amount of market rate prevailing on the date of the sale deed was deposited and by revised order dated 18.10.2016, regularized all the transactions which took place in respect of the subject land. By the order dated 25.09.2019, the Additional Collector, Aurangabad dismissed the said Appeal filed by the Petitioners, however set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 13.06.2016 and held that, 50% amount of Rs.5,84,01,000/- which was the amount of market value of the land on the date of payment by the transferees be recovered from the contesting Respondent if they failed to pay the same and further directed action against the Tahsildar under the disciplinary Rules. The said order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector came to be challenged by the Petitioners and by the contesting Respondents and the learned MRT after hearing both the sides passed the impugned order setting aside the order of the Additional Collector dated 25.09.2019 and quashed the directions issued by the Additional Collector directing the Tahsildar to accept 50% amount as per prevailing rate as on 18.10.2016.

One of the contentions raised by the contesting Respondents is in respect of delay in invoking the provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act by the Petitioners. It is the contention that, filing of the said proceedings dated 25.08.2008 were not within the reasonable time and filed after lapse of long period, as the sale-deeds were executed in the year 1988 and 1992. The provisions of Section 50B of the Tenancy Act is in respect of the restrictions on transfers of land purchased or sold under the Tenancy Act. The provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act is in respect of the procedure of taking the possession of the land or the dwelling house under the provisions of the Tenancy Act within a period of two (2) years. The said provision of Section 32 may not be relevant in the case at hand as it is clear that, the Petitioners had invoked the provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act. No limitation for invocation of the said provision under Section 98C has been prescribed. There cannot be any dispute in respect of the ratio of the said Judgments in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin (supra) and Dnyanoba Deorao Ugle (supra) that, where no time limit is prescribed for exercise of the powers under the statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time.

In Kashinath Vishwanath alias Krishnath S/o Pandurang Thodsare (supra), the issue was whether the Tahsildar can review his own order under the Tenancy Act and this Court observed that, ‘no such powers of review are provided under the said Act’.

In Sandip Aniruddh Jadhav (supra), the concerned Authority had cancelled the mutation entry on the ground that, no previous sanction was obtained from the Collector as required under Section 50B of the Tenancy Act. Further, the parties moved in Appeal and Revision and order impugned was passed by the Hon’ble Revenue Minister which held that, ‘the transaction was liable for regularization’. The Petition was allowed.

In Uttam Namdeo Mahale (supra), the proceedings under the Mamlatdar’s Court Act were initiated after a lapse of 12 years and one of the contentions was raised that, in absence of the prescription of limitation, in the absence of any specific limitation provided thereunder, necessary implication is that the general law of limitation provided in the Limitation Act (Act 2 of 1963) stands excluded.

The amended provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act were not for consideration in the said Judgments cited by the parties as they are prior to the Amendment Act, 2016, by which Section 98C of the Tenancy Act came to be amended. The legislature introduced Sub-section (6) in Section 98C of the Tenancy Act. The said sub-section provides for certain conditions, which if fulfilled, the Tahsildar cannot declare the transfer of land as invalid. The said Sub-section (6) was introduced by the Amendment Act of 2016, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 07.05.2016. The said Sub-section (6) reads as :

The order of the Additional Collector dated 25.09.2019 goes to show that, in view of the said Sub-section (6) of the Section 98C, the contesting Respondents were held liable to pay 50% amount as per the said clause (a) of clause (iii) of the said Sub-section (6) of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act. As regards the contention of the learned Advocates for the Petitioners that the provisions of said Sub-section (6) will not be applicable in the case at hand is concerned, the aforesaid provision goes to show that, there are certain conditions, if fulfilled, places an embargo on the powers of Tahsildar to declare the alienation, transfer or acquisition of any land to be invalid. The first clause of Sub-section (6) speaks that, the proceedings under Sub-section (1) of Section 98C whether initiated after the commencement of the Amendment Act 2016 or initiated before the said Amendment Act, but no order under Sub-section (2) had been made on or before the commencement date. In the case at hand, undisputedly, the first order on the Application filed by the Petitioners was dated 12.08.2013, which was undisputedly prior to the commencement of the said Amendment Act, 2016. However, the said order was not passed by the Tahsildar, who is the competent authority to pass the order of invalidation as per Sub-section (2) of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act. The said order was passed by the Deputy Collector directing the Tahsildar to take action under the provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act and Rules 11 and 48 of the Rules framed thereunder for the breach of Section 50B of the Tenancy Act. However, the said order passed by the Deputy Collector, was challenged before the learned MRT and the said order was set aside by the learned MRT on 14.10.2015 with the liberty to the Petitioners to file the proceedings before the competent authority for seeking relief. Undisputedly, pursuant to the said directions of the learned MRT, the Petitioners approached Tahsildar to invoke the provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar, who is the competent authority to pass the order of the invalidation under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act, passed the order on 13.06.2016 rejecting the Application filed by the Petitioners. The Amendment Act of 2016 was published in the Government Gazette on 07.05.2016 as is clear from the copy of the said Gazette tendered across the bar by the learned Advocate for the contesting Respondents. This goes to show that, the order of the competent authority i.e. Tahsildar, was after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2016. As the order by the Tahsildar is made after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2016, the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that, the said provision of Sub section (6) of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act will not be applicable in the case at hand has no merits and thus rejected.

Coming to the order impugned, the learned MRT in the impugned order observed that, ‘in view of the amendment under Section 98C (6) the party who has purchased property without permission under Section 50B of the Tenancy Act shall deposit 50% amount in respect of prevailing market value of the property on the day of execution of documents so the order passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad quashing the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 18.10.2016 was not proper.’ The said order dated 18.10.2016 shows that, the Tahsildar regularized the transaction on receipt of payment of Rs.2,78,500/-which was 50% of the market rate of Rs.5,57,000/- on the date of the sale-deed i.e. 12.03.1992. The provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 98C nowhere provides that, the amount equal to 50% of the market value of such land on the date of transfer or sale deed was to be paid. The explanation to the said Sub-section (6) of Section 98C is clear. It provides for the payment of certain percentage of the market rate or the rates published in the annual statement of rates, prevalent in respect of the year in which the transferee pays the amount, as per clause (a) or (b), as the case may be. Therefore, the said observation by the learned MRT that amount equal to 50% of the market value on the date of execution of document is contrary to the said provision of law. Similarly, the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Tahsildar computing the amount as per the prevailing market rate on the date of the sale-deed was also against the provision of law. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned MRT is liable to be set aside being contrary to the provisions of law.

The order under challenge before the learned MRT in the Revisions was dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad, directing payment or recovery of 50% of Rs.5,84,01,000/-which was the market rate as on 18.10.2016 i.e. the date on which the transferee had paid the amount as per the provisions of Sub section (6) of Section 98C. The interpretation made by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad in the said order is in consonance with the said provision and the learned MRT committed an error in interfering with the same. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad in the said order of 25.09.2019 set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar under the provisions of Sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of Sub-section (6) accepting 50% of the amount which was calculated as the prevailing rate of the sale deed and directed recovery of the amount considering the prevailing rate as on the date of payment i.e. 18.10.2016. Though at the time of the execution of the sale-deeds by the Petitioners in favour of the Respondents - Rashmi Mohanlal Jariwal and Shantiban Gangadhar Shaha the subject lands were the agricultural lands, there is nothing to show as to whether the said lands remained agricultural lands or were put to some other use on the date of payment. In the event of the subject lands being put to use for any other purpose other than agricultural purpose, the amount equal to 75% of the market value of the such land prevailing in the year in which the transferee pays the amount will have to be paid. For this, appropriate enquiry will have to be conducted by the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, who is the competent authority to hold the enquiry under the provisions of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act. The directions in that regard becomes imperative. In this view of the matter, the question of delay in invoking the proceedings under Section 98C of the Tenancy Act becomes academic.

As regards not issuing any notice to the Petitioners by the Tahsildar before passing the orders in respect of payment of 50% amount of the market value is concerned, there is nothing to show or pointed out that such notice was required to be issued to the parties. As the order dated 13.06.2016 and revised order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Tahsildar are set aside by the Additional Collector by order dated 25.09.2019, the contention in respect of Review powers needs no discussion. As regards the said Government Circular dated 16.07.2026 is concerned, it is made applicable from the date of issuance of the same and will not be of any relevance in the present matter.

During the course of hearing of the Petitions, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the interim order / injunction order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned MRT in the case Nos.93/B/2019/A and 94/B/2019/A which were the Revisions and also to the copies of the sale-deed dated 28.07.2021 executed by the Respondent -Sau. Rekha Dattatraya Patil in favour of Rita Anil Daygavhane, Proprietor of the Bhakti Developers in respect of the subject land. The said interim order / injunction order reads as under:

Undisputedly and as is clear from the copies of the aforesaid sale-deed, the Respondent – Sau. Rekha Dattatraya Patil had alienated the subject land / certain extent of subject land, in favour of the said third party, after the aforesaid interim order / interim injunction was passed by the learned MRT. Undisputedly, the Respondent - Sau Rekha Dattatraya Patil was the party to the proceedings before the learned MRT in which the said interim order / interim injunction was passed. Therefore, it is clear that, the Respondent - Sau Rekha Dattatraya Patil was aware of the interim order / interim injunction which was prior to the date of alienation. This shows that, prima facie case for contempt of the interim order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned MRT in the case Nos.93/B/2019/A and 94/B/2019/A is made out against the Respondent – Rekha Dattatraya Patil. The provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts) empowers this Court to exercise the jurisdiction to punish for contempt of the Subordinate Courts. The learned MRT is the Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, having the powers of Civil Court and would be covered in the phrase 'courts subordinate to it' used in Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Reference can be made to the decision in S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. v. Vinay Chandra Misra, AIR 1981 SC 723. The provisions of Rule 24, Chapter XXXIV of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 provides that, the Single Judge can deal with the contempt of order passed by the Sub-ordinate Court. Thus, notice will have to be issued to Respondent – Rekha Dattatraya Patil for contempt under the said Rules.

In view of the above discussion, following order is passed.

The Writ Petitions are partly allowed.

The impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned MRT is quashed and set aside.

The order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad, which was impugned in the Revision before the learned MRT is restored with the modification that, the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, shall conduct necessary enquiry as to for what purpose the subject land was put to use after transfer and thereafter calculate 50% or 75% amount, as the case may be, as provided under sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of Sub-section (6) of Section 98C of the Tenancy Act and thereafter, needful be done in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act at the earliest. In the event of non-fulfillment of the conditions contemplated under the provisions of Section 98C (6) of the Tenancy Act, pass appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

Issue notice under the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 to the Respondent - Sau Rekha Dattatraya Patil, returnable on 07.09.2026.

The office shall register the Contempt Proceedings separately and keep the record of Writ Petition with the Contempt Petition.

Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.