The Bombay High Court has clarified that for the provisions of Section 84C of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (MTAL Act) to be invoked, the jurisdictional fact of a “transfer” (such as a sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage) must be established. The Court found that the Agreement for Sale itself contained a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the transfer, namely, securing the permission of the State. Since this approval was never received, the Court reasoned that no valid transfer could have been effected.
The Court held that to turn the objective of the MTAL Act on its head, to benefit a “violative transferee” at the expense of the “allegedly-violative transferor”, would be contrary to the very scheme of the legislation. Therefore, the Tribunal’s analysis of whether a transfer had actually occurred was deemed appropriate. The mere assertion of possession was considered of no value in demonstrating a transfer, as compliance with the MTAL Act was an integral requirement for any transfer to come about in the first place.
The Court also observed that the view taken in the Impugned Order, that the Subject Land was not transferred within the meaning of the law for the drastic effect of forfeiture under Section 84C to come about, is a reasonable one and far from arbitrary.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the Gaikars’ actions were problematic on multiple counts. First, the Bench noted the irony of the Gaikars seeking the nullification of the very transaction that granted them an interest in the Subject Land, 18 years after its execution.
The Bench stated that the protective sanction of nullifying a transaction, intended as a deterrent to prevent the tenant-turned-landlord from being deprived of the land, was instead being used to benefit the Gaikars by allowing them to acquire the same land from the State.
Second, the Bench found it inexplicable that the invocation of Section 84C was made by the very party against whose acquisition the provision was designed to guard the tiller. The Bench characterized the Gaikars’ actions as a “cynical reliance” on the law, where a party to a transaction with a troubled relationship seeks to nullify it only to become the sole beneficiary of the nullification.
Lastly, the Bench observed that the Gaikars, as ‘admittedly violative purchasers’, were attempting to transpose their ownership from that of a ‘violative owner to a compliant owner’, thereby cutting out the original transferor.
Briefly, the dispute concerns a parcel of land in Village Ariwali, originally owned by Mr. Patankar, of which the Patils (Respondents) became deemed purchasers as agricultural tenants under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. On May 2, 1977, the Patils and the Gaikars (Petitioners) executed an unregistered Agreement for Sale, and possession was allegedly transferred to the Gaikars.
In 1995, nearly 18 years later, the Gaikars initiated proceedings under Section 84C of the MTAL Act, claiming the transfer was invalid under Section 43 of the Act. The Tahsildar, Panvel, agreed and issued an order under Section 84C on April 25, 1997, leading to the land vesting in the State. Subsequently, the land was sold to the Gaikars through a proclamation and an Allotment Order dated February 24, 2000.
The Patils challenged the Section 84C Order, leading to a series of appeals, revisions, and remands over several years. Ultimately, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in its Impugned Order dated January 13, 2020, held that the Agreement for Sale was not an instrument of transfer, and therefore the vesting of the land in the State and its subsequent sale to the Gaikars was untenable.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Abhay S. Khandeparkar along with Advocates Rushikesh G. Bhagat and Anilkumar Joshi, for the Petitioner
Advocate Mahendra Agavekar, for the Respondent
