1. Petitioners contest state directions to restore property under land revenue code provisions, citing prior slum redevelopment clearance and non-agricultural permanent development on the subject plot. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ
Jyoti Builders – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 4418 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 4488 OF 2025
Important Points
Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code applies only to agricultural land. If land is declared a slum or converted to non-agricultural use, the jurisdictional fact of 'agricultural land' is absent, rendering any restoration order a nullity.
Subject
Civil - Land Revenue / Slum Rehabilitation
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.226
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: S.36, S.36A
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: S.4, S.3C
Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribe Act, 1974
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: S.36, S.36A
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: S.4, S.3C
Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribe Act, 1974
Headnote
(A) Land Revenue Law - Restoration of Tribal Land - Section 36A of MLRC - Applicability limited to agricultural land; land converted to non-agricultural use or declared as a slum is incapable of personal cultivation and thus falls outside the scope of restoration. (Para 9, 11, 16)
(B) Jurisdictional Fact - Exercise of Power - The existence of agricultural land is a jurisdictional fact; absence of such fact renders the authority's action a nullity. (Para 12, 13, 14)
(C) Slum Rehabilitation - Priority of Scheme - Once land is notified as a slum and developed under SRA schemes, insistence on restoration under tribal land laws is unsustainable. (Para 7, 10, 35)
Issues: Whether the Collector has jurisdiction to restore land under Section 36A of the MLRC when the land has been declared a slum and used for non-agricultural purposes.
Result: Petitions allowed.
(B) Jurisdictional Fact - Exercise of Power - The existence of agricultural land is a jurisdictional fact; absence of such fact renders the authority's action a nullity. (Para 12, 13, 14)
(C) Slum Rehabilitation - Priority of Scheme - Once land is notified as a slum and developed under SRA schemes, insistence on restoration under tribal land laws is unsustainable. (Para 7, 10, 35)
Issues: Whether the Collector has jurisdiction to restore land under Section 36A of the MLRC when the land has been declared a slum and used for non-agricultural purposes.
Result: Petitions allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinay Nair, Arun Panickar, Ravi Kadam, Ashish Kamat, Jitendra Jain
For the Respondents: Mohit Jadhav, Rakesh Pathak, Ranjit Thorat, Hemant Ghadigonkar, Pratibha Shelake
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinay Nair, Arun Panickar, Ravi Kadam, Ashish Kamat, Jitendra Jain
For the Respondents: Mohit Jadhav, Rakesh Pathak, Ranjit Thorat, Hemant Ghadigonkar, Pratibha Shelake
Table of Contents
2. Respondents claim restoration rights under land revenue laws for tribal land, whereas petitioners argue the land is non-agricultural, slum-governed, and legally developed. (Para 4 , 5 , 20 )
3. The court analyzed the status of the land, finding it is non-agricultural and covered by slum redevelopment laws, rendering tribal restoration provisions inapplicable due to jurisdictional lack. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 21 , 22 , 27 , 31 , 33 )
4. Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code applies exclusively to agricultural land capable of personal cultivation; it cannot be invoked for land converted to slum use. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 )
5. The court quashed the impugned state administrative communication and dismissed the restoration application for want of jurisdictional competence. (Para 35 , 36 )
6. Can land revenue provisions for restoration of tribal land be applied to properties already declared as slum areas?
No. The court held that once land is notified as a slum and developed for rehabilitation, its character changes to non-agricultural, rendering provisions meant for agricultural tribal land restoration inapplicable. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 21 )
7. What constitutes a jurisdictional fact for invoking Sections 36 or 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code?
The existence of agricultural land capable of being put in personal cultivation is a condition precedent. Without this foundational fact, revenue authorities lack the competence to initiate restoration proceedings. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 14 )
8. Does a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction allow for the invalidation of prior orders in collateral proceedings?
Yes. A defect of subject-matter jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the adjudicating body, rendering the resulting order a nullity, which may be asserted whenever such order is enforced. (Para 17 , 18 )
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek to challenge the letter dated 23rd June 2025, issued by the State of Maharashtra at the instance of Laxmibai Mangal Page (Respondent No. 4 and 5 respectively in the above Petitions), directing the Collector of Mumbai Suburban i.e. the Respondent No.2, to take immediate action of restoration of the subject property under section 36A(6) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘MLRC’) on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the legal opinion obtained from the Law and Judiciary Department which is entirely contrary to the law and without even considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2) Since the issues involved in the above Petitions are the same and as the contesting parties are common, therefore for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their names for clarity.
3) Jyoti Builders is implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on 4 plots of land admeasuring 12,606,70 sq. mtrs. situated at village Malad (East), at off Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East) (‘the Project Property’) under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (‘Slum Act’), under valid permissions of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’). Out of the project property, a plot bearing CTS No. 619 is the subject matter of the Petition (‘the subject property’).
Brief Facts:
4) Laxmibai Mangal Page (‘Laxmibai’) the contesting Respondent claims to be a tribal and the daughter of one Warlya Shaniwar who was the original owner of the subject property. The subject property was sold by Warlya Shaniwar to the predecessors of Jyoti Builders by a registered Deed of Conveyance on 25th October 1991 on the basis that, he belonged to ‘Other Backward Class’ and not to Scheduled Tribe stated on Affidavit dated 16th April 1991. Warlya Shanivar died on 26th September 1995. However, despite Laxmibai being paid under a settlement by Ram Kumar Mahaton and Harishree Enterprises evinced by the execution of an Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of Harishree Enterprises, she made an Application dated 27th August 2019, seeking restoration (restoration Application) of the subject property under Section 36A of the MLRC before the learned Collector, Mumbai Suburban District after a delay of fourteen years. Upon her Application, the SDO by his Order dated 8th February 2005, held that the transfers to the said Ram Kumar Mahaton and Harishree were invalid in light of Section 36A of MLRC and the subject property vested in the State. Several litigations ensued and were disposed off. During the pendency of one such Writ Petition bearing No. 2123 of 2025 the State of Maharashtra issued the impugned letter dated 23rd June 2025. Despite correspondence with them to withdraw the said letter, they did not, based on some legal opinion obtained by them. The above conduct of Laxmibai and the Authorities have compelled the Petitioners to file the Petitions.
5) We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. Ravi Kadam appearing for Jyoti Builders, Mr. Ranjit Thorat, learned senior counsel for Laxmibai Page, Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for the State in Writ Petition No.4418 of 2025, Mr. Mohit Jadhav. AGP for the State in Writ Petition No.4488 of 2025 and perused the record.
6) We find merit in Mr. Kadam’s submission that, the facts of the present case are similar to and therefore covered by the Judgment of this Court in Jai Ganesh SRA CHS (prop.) & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2016 (5) AIR Bom R 209: 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5176. The Division Bench of this Court has held that, the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribe Act, 1974 , would be applicable to the transfers between 1st April 1957 and 6th July 1974. It has been followed in the case of Harasiddh Corporation vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2034, to which one of us (Kamal Khat
