Validation of property transfers under agricultural laws requires strict adherence to procedural requirements; failure to do so raises jurisdictional issues.

1. Both Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. Both Writ Petitions take exception to the order dated 17.03.2021 (identical but passed in separate proceedings) by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “MRT”) in Revision Proceedings under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the said Act”). Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1112 of 2021 is the sister of Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1113 of 2021. Facts are absolutely identical. For convenience and reference, facts in Writ Petition No.1112 of 2021 are referred to herein.

3. Such of the relevant facts which are necessary for deciding the lis between the parties are outlined herein under:-

(i) The lis is with respect to immovable properties in respect of 7 Survey Numbers / Gat Numbers having different areas situated in Village Vardoli, Tal. Panvel, District Raigad. The description of the subject properties is given in paragraph No.2 of the Writ Petition. Record reveals and it is an admitted position that the subject properties originally belonged to the ownership of Prabhakar Trimbak Joshi, father of both Petitioners. By a registered conveyance dated 04.08.2006 the subject properties were transferred and sold to the Respondent – Varadoli Agrofarms Pvt. Ltd.. Mutation Entry No.1482 dated 05.10.2006 came to be registered which was subsequently set aside on 01.12.2006. Subsequently on 19.01.2010 another Mutation Entry No.1755 was registered, but vide order dated 15.10.2010 the said Mutation Entry was removed. In the order dated 15.10.2010, Tahsildar held that the said Mutation Entry was carried out without adhering to the provisions of Section 63 of the said Act which required the parties to obtain permission of the Competent Authority for sale / transfer of agricultural land under Section 63 of the said Act.

(ii) Being aggrieved, Respondent filed Revision Application before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “MLR Code”) against the above order. Vide order dated 36.04.2011 the Additional Commissioner allowed the Revision and directed restoration of the name of the Respondent in the Revenue Record and directed that appropriate inquiry under the provisions of Section 84C of the said Act as contemplated was required to be undertaken to establish whether on the date of transfer of the subject properties as to whether the Respondent was an agriculturist or otherwise. The Additional Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to inform all parties to the proceedings to approach the appropriate authority for a decision on the above issue in accordance with law. As a consequence of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 30.04.2011, fresh Mutation Entry No.1812 was carried out and name of the Respondent was once again mutated.

(iii) Petitioners being aggrieved with the above order filed statutory Appeal / Second Revision under Section 74 of the said Act before the State Government. After hearing the parties the State Government held that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 30.04.2011 deserved to be set aside. Both Mutation Entry Nos.1755 and 1822 were set aside and both parties namely Applicants and Respondents were directed to approach the appropriate Competent Authority for determination of their substantive rights in respect of the subject properties. Thus, liberty was given to both the parties to take out appropriate proceedings under Section 84C of the said Act seeking appropriate inquiry and decision.

(iv) Petitioners did not take any steps pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2013. Respondent filed an Application under Section 63 of the said Act seeking regularization of the transaction between the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners and R