Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 185097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI
TUKARAM KISHAN KHEDKAR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP/10895/2022

Perpetual and alienable grant lands fall exclusively under provisions that do not require holders to pay occupancy price to the government. Statutory frameworks governing such grants and non-perpetual grants operate independently, preventing administrative authorities from applying the latter’s restrictive requirements to the former.

Headnote:(A) Land Tenure and Abolition of Grants - Provisions dealing with occupancy rights - Distinction between sections governing perpetual versus other forms of grants - Statutory provisions create independent regimes for perpetual and alienable grants compared to other grant types - Perpetual and alienable grant lands are covered exclusively by provisions exempting the holder from payment of occupancy price obligations. (Paras 12, 14, 18).

(B) Administrative Jurisdiction - Scope of authority - Statutory bodies lack the jurisdiction to determine the legality of conveyance instruments executed by title holders unless explicitly conferred by law - Authority is restricted to specific inquiries regarding the nature of the grant and the occupant's status. (Paras 11, 23).

(C) Vesting - Legal consequences - Vesting of land in the state upon abolition does not inherently negate the holder's right to possession, nor does it necessitate a formal re-grant by the state - Possession is preserved unless expressly extinguished by failure to meet statutory obligations. (Paras 17, 19).

Facts of the case:
The litigation involves the classification of land formerly held under a specific type of grant which was abolished by government mandate. Revenue authorities ordered the recovery of possession and demanded payment of occupancy price, asserting that the land was subject to statutory conditions for non-perpetual grants. The petitioners contested this classification, arguing the grant was alienable in perpetuity, thereby exempting them from such payments and permitting unrestricted transfer of the property.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the administrative authorities erred in law by applying statutory provisions intended for non-perpetual, restricted-tenure land to a perpetual and alienable grant. It affirmed that the relevant legal framework establishes two mutually exclusive sets of rules, and the demand for occupancy price and subsequent orders for possession were legally untenable.

Issues: The main issues were the precise classification of the land grant held in perpetuity and whether revenue authorities acted within their legal jurisdiction in demanding occupancy price payments and questioning the validity of registered transfer instruments.

Ratio Decidendi: Since the subject real estate constitutes a perpetual and alienable grant, it is governed exclusively by the statutory provision that imposes no obligation on the grantee to pay occupancy price to the state. The restrictive measures adopted by lower authorities resulted from a fundamental misinterpretation and misapplication of the governing law regarding the classification of grants.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside.

2025:BHC-AUG:29221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9715 OF 2022 1. Shaikh Afzal Shaikh Budhan age 51 years, occ. Agril r/o Deolai, Aurangabad. Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

2. Riyazkhan s/o Faradkhan age 56 years, occ. Agril, r/o Deolai, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

3. Alatfkhan s/o Faridkhan age 45 years, occ. Agril r/o Deolai, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

4. Shaikh Mohsin Shaikh Rahemtulla age 40 years, occ. Agril, r/o Deolai, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ….Petitioners VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Forest and Revenue Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner No. 2, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

3. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad.

4A The Deputy Collector (General Admn.)

Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

4B The Deputy Collector (Land and Record)

Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. …..Respondents Mr. G. K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State.

Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. S. S. Shete, Advocate for Caveator.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11740 OF 2022

1. Murlidhar Keshav Dixit age 88 years, occ. nil/pensioner r/o Rishikesh Apt. Gananjay Society Kothrud, Pune 29

2. Heramb s/o Shripad Dixit age 58 years, occ. Business r/o State Bank Colony near Tapar Hostel, Amravati

3. Manjushah d/o Shripad Dixit age 54 years, occ. Household r/o State Bank Colony, near Tapar Hostel, Amravati Through power of attorney Balbhim s/o Marutirao patodekar age 84 years, occ. nil/pensioner r/o Plot No. 26, Rachnakar Colony Station Road, Aurangabad .....Petitioners VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Forest and Revenue Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner 2, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad.

3. The Additional Collector Aurangabad (General Administration)

4. The Deputy Collector (L.R.)

Aurangabad. Dist. Aurangabad.

5. The Tahsildar Aurangabad. .....Respondents Mr. Shakil U. Shaikh, Advocate holding for Mr. S. B. Ghute, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State.

Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. S. S. Shete, Advocate for Caveator.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12182 OF 2022 Amit Arvind Agarwal .....Petitioner VERSUS

1. The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Office at Commissioner Office building at Aurangabad.

2. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad.

Office at Collector office building at Auranbad.

3. The Deputy Collector/Administration Aurangabad.

Office at Collector office building at Aurangabad.

4. The Tehsildar at Aurangabad Office at Tehsil Office, Aurangabad. 5. The Revenue Circle Inspector Office at Revenue Department Collector Office Building At Aurangabad.

6. The Talathi, Sajja Satara Ofifce at Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

.....Respondents Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State.

Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. S. S.Shete, Advocate for Caveator.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10895 OF 2022

1, Tukaram Kishan Khedkar age 78 years, occ. Agriculture r/o Sutgirni Chowk, Garkheda Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

2. Sachin s/o Tukaram Khedkar age 46 years, occ. Business r/o Sahyadri Hills, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

3. Sushil s/o Tukaram Khedkar age 45 years, occ. Business r/o as above.

4. Vaishali w/o Kalyan Dangode age 41 years, occ. Household r/o D-5 Tapdiya Nagar, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

5. Anand s/o Kalyan Danode age 40 years, occ. Business r/o as above.

6. Sau. Sharda s/o Umesh Navthar age 37 years, occ. Household r/o Flat No. 10, Wdkar Corner Hindu Rashtra Chowk, Garkheda Aurangabad.

7. Santosh s/o Kaisanrao Kulkarni age 44 years, occ. Services r/o Row House No. 1-4, Plot No. 13 SamarthREsidency N-7, Cidco, Aurangabad.

8. Chandrakant s/o Bhagwandas Asrani age 46 years, occ. Business r/o Flat NO. H – A16, Raygad Building Tirupati Enclave, Ulkanagari Garkheda, Aurangabad.

9. Pradipkumar s/o Narayandas Tharani age 46 years, occ. Service

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 185097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHITUKARAM KISHAN KHEDKAR AND OTHERS – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS – RespondentWP/10895/2022

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI
TUKARAM KISHAN KHEDKAR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP/10895/2022