2026:BHC-AS:4769 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4899 OF 2024 Shri. Govind Goma Gaikar, Smt. Laxmi Govind Gaikar (Both Decd.) Through Lrs.)

Shri. Shankar Govind Gaikar & Ors. ….Petitioners Versus Shri. Gopal Babu Patil (Decd.Through Lrs.)

Smt. Rukmini Gopal Patil & Ors. ….Respondents Mr. Abhay S. Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.

Rushikesh G. Bhagat i/b. Anilkumar Joshi, for Petitioners.

Mr. Mahendra Agavekar, for Respondents.

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

DATE: JANUARY 30, 2026 ORAL JUDGEMENT:

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, the Petition is heard finally.

Context and Factual Background:

2. This Petition impugns a Judgement and Order dated January 13, 2020 (“Impugned Judgement”) passed by the Learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“Learned Tribunal”), which allowed a Revision Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN Page 1 of 18 GAJANAN PALKAR

2026.01.30

1 + 7 0 : 5 4 3 1 0 :38 Aarti Palkar Application filed by the Respondents, who are the legal heirs of Late Gopal Babu Patil (collectively, “Patils”).

3. The Petitioners, who are legal heirs of Late Govind Goma Gaikar and Late Laxmi Govind Gaikar (collectively, “Gaikars”), contend that the land parcel falling in Survey No.78, admeasuring 0-41-0 H.R.P. in Village Ariwali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad (“Subject Land”) falls within their entitlement, having acquired it first from the Patils and later through a public process run under the Maharashtra Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“MTAL Act”).

4. The Gaikars contend that the Subject Land originally belonged to one Mr. Patankar, and the Patils, as agricultural tenants, became deemed purchasers of the Subject Land under Section 32G of the MTAL Act. The Patils’ ownership was recorded by Mutation Entry No.556 dated November 1, 1971.

5. On May 2, 1977, the Gaikars and the Patils executed an agreement for sale (“Agreement for Sale”). Possession of the Subject Land is said to have been handed over by the Patils to the Gaikars. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the Patils are said to have filed a suit against the Gaikars for a mandatory injunction against interference with the Subject Land. It is stated that the suit came to be dismissed for default on June 10, 1996.

6. Meanwhile, on December 1, 1995, the Gaikars filed a Tenancy Complaint No. 5 of 1995 under Section 84C of the MTAL Act with the Tahsildar, Panvel, claiming that the transfer of the Subject Land had been bad in law by virtue of Sections 27 and 43 of the MTAL Act. By an Order dated April 25, 1997 (“Section 84C Order”), the Tahsildar, Panvel allowed the complaint and held that the transfer of the Subject Land by the Patils was illegal in view of Section 43 of the MTAL Act.

7. Therefore, the Tahsildar issued a proclamation of the Subject Land on December 20, 1999 since the land now vested in the State. On the same day, the Gaikars applied for purchase of the Subject Land in response to the proclamation. Pursuant to the response to the proclamation, the Subject Land came to be sold to the Gaikars by order dated February 24, 2000 (“Allotment Order”).

8. On October 31, 2000, the Patils challenged the Section 84C Order by filing an Appeal under Section 74 of the MTAL Act being Appeal No.17 of 2000. This Appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated December 30, 2000, passed by the Sub-Division Officer on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. Revision Application No.185-B of 2001 under Section 76 of the MTAL Act was filed before the Learned Tribunal by the Patils. The Revision Application came to be allowed by the Learned Tribunal by an order dated October 29, 2009, concluding that the matter ought to be heard afresh since the dismissal of the Appeal was not by way of a reasoned order.

9. On March 21, 2012, the Appeal against the Section 84C Order, upon remand, was re-heard by the Sub-Division Officer. The Section 84C Order was set aside (“Remand Order”). It wa