SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date: 2025.05.26 WRIT PETITION NO.2727 OF 2018

19:12:31 +0530 Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne ] Ruler of ex-State of Jawahar, ] Jai Vilas Palace, At Post Jawahar, ]

District Palghar (Maharashtra) ] .. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra, ]

Through the Department of Revenue & Forest, ]

2. The Collector, ]

District Palghar ]

3. The Additional Collector, ]

Jawahar ]

4. Marzban Jehangirji Patel, ]

R/of Patel Pada, Dist. Palghar ] .. Respondents Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud with Ms. Unnati Ghia and Mr. Subodh Kurudkar, Advocates, i/by Kurudkar Associates, for the Petitioner.

Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General, with Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader, Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, ‘B’ Panel Counsel and Mrs. M.S. Bane, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr. Dharmesh Pandya with Ms. Tejal Pandya, Advocates, i/by Ashwin Pandya & Associates, for Respondent No.4.

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ The date on which the arguments were concluded : 25^TH APRIL, 2025.

The date on which the Judgment is pronounced : 26^th MAY, 2025.

JUDGMENT : [ Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. ]

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-

Tribals) Rules, 1975.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final consideration. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Gat Nos.6, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17, situated at Mouje Ashagad (Asave), Tal. Dahanu, Dist. Palghar, are ancestral lands to which the petitioner has succeeded. The petitioner belongs to “Mahadev Koli” tribe, which is recognized as a “Scheduled Tribe” in the State of Maharashtra. The father of the 4^th respondent was inducted as a tenant of the aforesaid lands by the predecessor of the petitioner in the year 1940. According to the petitioner, an application under Section 36A(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, “the Code”) came to be moved. In the said proceedings, the petitioner and the 4^th respondent arrived at an amicable settlement. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings initiated by him with a further permission to transfer the aforesaid lands in favour of the 4^th respondent. An application dated 23^rd February 2004 in that regard was moved before the Collector. On 1^st September 2006, the petitioner was informed that the 4^th respondent was a non-tribal and as the land was being purchased for agricultural use, in view of the provisions of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules of 1975”), permission for transfer could not be granted. Notwithstanding this communication, the petitioner made another application addressed to the Hon’ble Revenue Minister for State reiterating the request made earlier. The petitioner was again informed on 12^th July 2010 that in view of the provisions of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Rules of 1975, as the land was being transferred to a non-tribal for agricultural use, such permission could not be granted. The petitioner and the 4^th respondent have since continued their efforts to seek permission from the Revenue Authorities. It is in that backdrop that the petitioner has filed this writ petition raising a challenge to the validity of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Rules of 1975 by urging that as it permits transfer by a tribal in favour of a non-tribal only if the land is to be used for non-agricultural purpose.

3. It may be stated that being aggrieved by the order dated 12^th July 2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Jawahar, the petitioner had filed a Revision Application before the State Government on 20^th June 2014. Since the Revision Application was not