Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
Sandip Aniruddh Jadhav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondents
Writ Petition No.7263 of 2014 With Civil Application No.2651 of 2025
Decided on : 28-03-2025
(A) Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Section 50-B - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 257 and 249 - Challenge to the order of the Minister of Revenue regarding the regularization of a sale deed executed without prior permission - Sale deed declared invalid due to contravention of Section 50-B(2) - The petitioners were necessary parties in the proceedings, and their exclusion violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 3, 11, 40-45)
(B) Jurisdictional Error - The Additional Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by granting post facto sanction for a transaction invalidated by law, which cannot be regularized. (Paras 43-45)
(C) Natural Justice - The petitioners were denied the opportunity to be heard, as they were not made parties to the proceedings, leading to a quashing of the impugned orders. (Paras 49-55)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, as heirs of a protected tenant, challenged the regularization of a sale deed executed without the Collector's permission, arguing that their rights were not considered in the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the sale deed was invalid due to lack of prior sanction and that the petitioners were necessary parties who were not given a chance to be heard.
Issues: Whether the orders passed were without jurisdiction and whether the petitioners were necessary parties in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Additional Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by allowing post facto sanction for an invalid transaction and that the petitioners' exclusion from the proceedings violated natural justice.
Result: The writ petition is allowed; the orders are quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. Petitioner challenges order dated 23/06/2014 passed by the Minister of Revenue, State of Maharashtra, in Revision No. ROR/5300/2014 along with the order dated 21/10/2013 passed by respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Revision No.ROR/149/2012.
3. Petitioners' father Aniruddha Santaram Jadhav was protected tenant of the land admeasuring 6 Acre 31 Are in Survey No.164, situated at Jalna. Hence, the petitioners are owners and possessors of the said land as protected tenants. In view of the fact that their father was protected tenant, the said land is not capable of being alienated without permission of the Collector as provided under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the said Act’). In spite of that, Aniruddha Santaram, Prayagbai Santaram, Avantikabai Santaram and Sulochana Santaram have executed sale deed of the land to the extent of 6 Acre 31 Are from Survey No.164 in favour of respondent No.5 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company. The transaction has taken place without obtaining prior permission of the Collector as provided under Section 50-B of the said Act. Pursuant to execution of sale deed Mutation Entry No.2525 was taken in the revenue record in favour of respondent No.5 Company. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna, in exercise of his powers under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short ‘MLR Code’) issued notices to all the parties including respondent No.5 Company and after hearing them cancelled Mutation Entry No.2525 vide order dated 21/08/1998, on the ground that no previous sanction is obtained from the Collector as required under Section 50-B of the said Act.
4. Being aggrieved by order dated 21/08/1998, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No.5 Company filed the Review Application. It is contended by learned advocate for respondent No.5, that his Review Application is still pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Pursuant to the order dated 21/08/1998 and further orders passed in that regard by the Deputy Collector, Jalna, Mutation Entry No.4408 is recorded thereby deleting name of respondent No.5 Company and recording names of Aniruddha Santaram, Prayagbai Santaram, Avantikabai Santaram and Sulochana Santaram in respect of land to the extent of 6 Acre 31 Are in Survey No.164.
5. Respondent No.5 filed Appeal against Mutation Entry No.4408 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna, under Section 247 of the MLR Code. Petitioner contends that though respondent No.5 has challenged Mutation Entry No.4408, he has not challenged the order dated 21/08/1998 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No.4408 has been taken. It is contended that in the Appeal filed by respondent No.5, false grounds have been raised. On 08/11/2010 the Sub Divisional Officer has rejected the Appeal by refusing to interfere with the order on the ground that, order under challenge is passed by the Officer who is equivalent in rank, therefore, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the same. Thereafter, respondent No.5 filed Appeal before the Additional Collector, Jalna, challenging the order dated 08/11/2010, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer. The Additional Collector also rejected the Appeal vide order dated 28/03/2012, observing that pursuant to order dated 21/08/1998 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mutation Entry No.2525 has been cancelled. However, record does not disclose whether order dated 21/08/1998 has been challenged; and from the Appeal memo it appears that Review application is still pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Hence, he has refused to interfere in the order.
6. Respondent No.5 Company, thereafter, filed Revision Petition No.149/2012 before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, along with Misc. Application seeking condonation of delay. The Revision came to be allowed vide order dated 21/10/201
Sale deeds executed without prior permission under Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act are invalid and cannot be regularized post facto.
The mutation of self-acquired property requires a relinquishment deed and cannot be authorized by revenue authorities without jurisdiction, particularly when delay in appeal is not condoned.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a mutation must adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, and the authority reviewing the muta....
A land sale finalized under old tenure is valid without needing permission, and re-opening resolved disputes requires substantial justification; delay affects maintainability of claims.
The main legal point established is that the absence of permission and validation under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1950 renders a sale transaction void and unlawful.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation period for exercising suo-motu revisional power and the validity of a sale deed executed without permission from the Collector.
A simple sale deed cannot be regularized after a lengthy delay without adhering to statutory procedures, highlighting jurisdiction issues and due process in land disputes.
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The court established that transactions involving agricultural land require prior permission under the Tenancy Act, and failure to obtain such permission renders the transaction void.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
