Dharampal Sharma vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Ministry Of Revenue And Forest Dept., Through Government Pleader

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4891 OF 2025
1 . Dharampal Sharma ]
Age: 82 years, Indian Inhabitant ]
residing at 63/64, Juhu Sameep, ]
Juhu Versova Link Road, Andheri West ]
Mumbai - 400 053. ]
2. Vikram Auto Services ]
a partnership firm, registered under the ]
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 having ]
its office at Plot No.5, Survey No.161 ]
Juhu Versova Link Road, Andheri (W), ]
Mumbai- 400 053. ]
3. Abha Dharampal Sharma ]
Age: 77 years, Indian Inhabitant ]
4. Dr. Vikram Dharampal Sharma ]
Age: 52 years, Indian Inhabitant ]
Both partners of Petitioner No.2 and ]
residing at 63/64, Juhu Sameep, ]
Juhu Versova Link Road, ]
Andheri West, Mumbai 400 053. ] … Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra ]
through Ministry of Revenue & ]
Forest Department ]
Through Government Pleader, ]
Appellate Side, High Court, Bombay. ]
2. Hon'ble Minister (Revenue), ]
Revenue, Animal Husbandry and ]
Dairy Development, ]
Maharashtra State, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
1
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA
BHAGU
WADHWA
Date:
2026.07.07
19:56:17 +0530
SANDHYA
BHAGU
WADHWA

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
3. Joint Secretary (Revenue) ]
Main Building, 1st Floor, Madam ]
Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru ]
Chowk, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai 400 032. ]
4. The Collector, Mumbai Suburban ]
District ]
Administrative Building, 10" Floor ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ]
5. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ]
Through its Territory Manager- Mumbai]
Benzine Installation ]
Sewree Fort Road, Sewree (East) ]
Mumbai 400 015. ] …Respondents
__________________________________________________
Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel a/w. Adv. Girish Godbole,
Senior Counsel, Adv. Jai Kanade, Adv. Aneesha Munshi, Adv.
Sonam Pandey i/by Divya Shah Associates for the Petitioners.
Ms. Usha Rahi, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-State.
Mr. Pankaj Savant, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Aarti Abhyankar
i/by Indus Law for Respondent No.5.
__________________________________________________
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 10 APRIL, 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 7 July, 2026.
JUDGMENT:
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, by consent of
the Counsel, the Petition is taken up and heard finally.
2) The Petitioner has preferred the present Petition under
2

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the
common order dated 5th June 2025 ( “impugned order” ). By the
impugned order the Minister of Revenue - Respondent No. 2, in
Revision Application No.2622/CR28/G-3 ( “Jt. Secretary’s
Revision Application” ) and Revision Application
No.2623/10/966/CR-12/G-3 ( “BPCL Revision Application” ), in
exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 257 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ( “the MLRC” ), set aside
th
the order of the Collector – Respondent No. 4 dated 20 April
2021, by which he granted permission to convert the Petitioner’s
leasehold rights in the subject land into Occupancy Class-I under
the MLRC.
3) The Petitioners have challenged the impugned order
alleging it to be arbitrary, unjust, illegal and patently erroneous on
the ground that it has applied the Government Resolution dated
14th July 2021 retrospectively to set aside the order dated 20th
April 2021 (‘Collector’s Order’) passed earlier by the Respondent
No. 4.
4) The Collector’s Order permitted conversion of the
Petitioner’s rights in a piece of land admeasuring 1,127 sq. mtrs.
or thereabouts, situate at Village Versova, Tehsil Andheri, BSD on
3

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Plot No. 5, on City Survey No.161 of Versova, Mumbai Suburban
District (‘the said property’), from leasehold rights to Occupancy
Class - 1, upon payment of Rs. 6,39,79,790/- as premium under
the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II
and Leasehold Lands into Occupancy Class-I Lands) Rules, 2019
(“ the Conversion Rules” ).
Petitioner’s Submissions:
Retrospective application of GR
5) Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Petitioners, submitted at the outset, that the impugned
order is illegal and unsustainable because it rests on a
th
fundamental error in applying the G.R. dated 14 July, 2021
retrospectively to a conversion order that had already been
th
passed on 20 April, 2021. He submitted that the said
Government Resolution is merely an executive instruction; and
cannot override or supplant statutory rules framed under the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ( “MLRC” ), nor can it be given
retrospective effect so as to divest the Petitioner of accrued rights.
It was further submitted that, it is a settled principle that
executive instructions cannot operate to take away vested rights
that have already crystallised under a statutory framework.
4

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
6) He submitted that the Conversion Rules of 2019 apply to
the lands granted on leasehold for agricultural, commercial or
industrial purpose, and that any holder of land is entitled to have
the leasehold land converted to Occupancy Class I upon
completion of 5 years of lease.
7) He placed reliance on the following decisions of the
Supreme Court in support of his contention that executive
instructions can only supplement the rules and cannot be
sustained in law if it tends to supplant them.
1
a) Vanshakti & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.
2
b) Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors.
c) Suchitra Component Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central Excise,
3
Gunter
d) Ananta Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra and
4
Anr.
Findings in impugned order not supported by evidence :
8) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the findings
recorded in the impugned order regarding alleged breach of lease
conditions, alleged construction of garage and motor parts shop,
and the alleged sub-letting are wholly unsupported by any
1
2024 SCC Online Bom 3061
2
1994 Supp (3) SCC 451
3
(2006) 12 SCC 452
4
(2022) SCC OnLine Bom 1199
5

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
material on record. The suo motu show cause notice dated 12th
October 2022 did not disclose any cogent material, and even the
document referred to as “Sanchika” did not contain any material
supporting such allegations. He submitted that the Tahsildar,
Andheri, had conducted a site inspection and submitted a report
dated 22nd December 2020 which categorically recorded that
there was no breach of lease conditions, and that no contrary
material was produced before the revisional authority.
Employment of handicapped person
9) He further submitted that the impugned order also
erroneously proceeds on the ground of alleged non-employment of
handicapped persons in breach of lease conditions. However,
although the lease condition itself required employment of
handicapped persons “as far as practical”, the Petitioners had in
fact complied with the said condition. Earlier proceedings initiated
by the Collector on the very same ground had been closed by order
dated 27th December 2013 upon satisfaction of compliance; and
that the revisional authority could not have reopened concluded
issues without any fresh material.
Locus of Respondent No.5 to be heard in proceedings:
10) Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
6

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Respondent No.5 has no locus standi to challenge the Conversion
Order. The conversion proceedings pertained to the relationship
between the State as lessor and the Petitioners as lessee.
Respondent No.5 was neither a party to the Lease Deed dated 5th
October 1993 nor had any right, title or interest in the subject
land. Even under the Sub-Lease Deed dated 14th May 2003
executed pursuant to the Collector’s permission dated 2nd June
2001, Respondent No.5’s rights were expressly confined to
structures, and it was specifically stipulated that no proprietary
interest in land would accrue to the Respondent No.5.
11) He further submitted that the sub-lease in favour of
Respondent No.5 had admittedly expired on 11th September
2020, i.e. prior to the Conversion Order dated 20th April 2021,
and therefore Respondent No.5 had no subsisting right even under
the sub-lease at the relevant time. The finding in the impugned
order that Respondent No.5 continued as a sub-lessee by “holding
over” is wholly erroneous, as Respondent No.5 was not in
possession of the land, and no rent was accepted after expiry of
the sub-lease so as to attract Section 116 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (“TOPA”).
12) He further submitted that the impugned order further
7

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
proceeds on an incorrect assumption that Respondent No.5 has an
interest in land by reason of the structures erected by it. It is well
settled that construction on leased land does not confer ownership
of land, and both the lease deed and the sub-lease clearly
distinguish between the land and the superstructure. The reliance
placed by Respondent No.5 on the definition of “land” in the MLRC
and on Section 3 of the TOPA is wholly misconceived and contrary
to the contractual arrangement between the parties.
Respondent No.5’s involvement in proceedings :
13) The learned Senior Counsel invited attention to clauses of
th
the Lease Deed dated 5 October 1993 executed between the
Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner, and to the clauses of the sub-
lease whereby the Respondent No.5 undertook to pay lease rent on
behalf of the lessee during the subsistence of lease. Since it was
the Respondent No. 5’s contractual obligation to pay the lease rent
and consequently the differential rent demanded by Respondent
No.4, Respondent No. 5 was involved in the proceedings. The
payment of Rs. 2,94,37,909/- by the Respondent No.5 was towards
the arrears of differential rent in discharge of its contractual
obligation, and not towards conversion premium; and was paid
during the subsistence of lease. Hence, Respondent No. 5’s claim to
8

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
be heard in the conversion proceedings is wholly misplaced.
Revenue Minister exceeded his revisional jurisdiction :
14) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the revisional
authority has exceeded its jurisdiction under section 257 of MLRC
by effectively adjudicating civil rights between the Petitioners and
Respondent No.5, which is impermissible in proceedings under the
MLRC. The revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the
legality and propriety of orders passed by subordinate officers,
and does not extend to adjudicating inter se disputes between the
Respondent No. 5 and the Petitioner regarding title or contractual
rights.
Gross delay in filing Revision Application by Respondent No.5
15) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Respondent No. 5
th
was aware of the conversion order dated 20 April 2021, as
st
evinced by the Petitioner’s letter dated 21 April 2021 addressed
to Respondent No.5. By the said letter, the Petitioner had
communicated its disinclination to renew the sub-lease and had
sought conversion of the outlet from Company-owned to Dealer-
owned petrol pump. These terms were unacceptable to
Respondent No. 5, and therefore instead of filing civil proceedings
against the Petitioner No.1, preferred to file a revision application
9

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
before the authority after a substantial period of 542 days. Relying
5
on MTNL v State of Maharashtra he submitted that where a
party approaches the Court with unclean hands, an unsatisfactory
explanation for the delay (there, 401 days) warrants refusal of
condonation.
Respondents Submissions:
16) Mr. Pankaj Sawant, learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No. 5, at the outset submits that, the matter may be
remanded back to the Respondent No. 4 with a direction that
Respondent No. 5, which being a sub-lessee that has invested
substantially in the subject land, is an affected party.
17) Relying upon the definition of “land” in Section 2(16) of
the MLRC to submit that it includes benefits arising out of things
‘attached to the earth’; and on the definition of “attached to the
earth” in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA)
which includes things embedded in the earth, such as walls or
buildings attached or embedded for permanent beneficial
enjoyment thereof, he submitted that there could be no dispute
that Respondent No. 5 had erected structures on the subject
property and has intrinsic rights therein, having paid property
taxes for it.
5
(2013) 9 SCC 92
10

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
18) He submitted that the Petitioner No.1 was allotted the
subject property on the basis of the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated
th
25 May, 1983 issued by the Respondent No.5, specifically for the
purpose of running a petrol pump. He relied on the Letter of
th
Allotment dated 12 September, 1990 issued by Revenue and
Forest Department, State of Maharashtra, which specifically
stated that the subject property should be given on lease for 30
years to Petitioner No.1 “for running a petrol pump on behalf of
Respondent No.5.” The letter also categorically stated that the
subject land “shall be used only for petrol pump sanctioned to the
leaseholder on behalf of Respondent No.5.”
19) He further relied on the recital to the Lease Agreement
th
dated 5 October, 1993 executed between the Government/State
of Maharashtra- Respondent No.1 in favour of the Petitioner No.1
and particularly the words mentioned in the recital namely:
“ Whereas at the request of the lessee, the lessor has agreed
to grant on lease to the lessee and the lessee has agreed to take on
lease from the lessor for the purpose of installing a petrol pump as
th
per Letter of Intent dated 25 May, 1983 issued in favour of the
lessee by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd….”
20) He also relied upon the No Objection Certificate (NOC)
11

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
nd
dated 2 June, 2001 issued by the Collector permitting sub-lease
of the property to Respondent No.5; the minutes of the meeting
th
dated 18 January, 2002 held between the Respondent No.5 and
the Petitioner No.1. He also relied upon the License Agreement
th th
dated 15 October, 2002 and 11 June, 2018 in addition to the
th
indenture of sub-lease dated 14 May, 2003 executed between the
Petitioners and Respondent No.5, to contend that Respondent
No.5 had rights and interest in the subject land. He submitted that
throughout the tenure of the lease period, since inception namely
establishment of petrol pump, the Respondent No.5 had actively
participated and supported the Petitioner No.1 whether it was
before the Collector (Respondent No.4) or the proceedings filed
before the High Court.
21) The learned counsel submitted that the Respondent No.5
has consistently borne financial liabilities in respect of the subject
property, including payment of lease rents, differential rent and
other dues demanded by the authorities. He further submitted
th
that, the Collector’s communication dated 28 January, 2019
would evince that the communication was addressed not only to
the Petitioners but also Respondent No.5 demanding differential
rent for conversion of the subject property to Occupancy Class-II.
12

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Respondent No.5 paid a sum of Rs.2.94 crores towards arrears of
lease rental and differential rent only on the basis of assurances
given by the Petitioner No.1 regarding renewal of the sub-lease.
Despite the support received from the Respondent No.5, the
Petitioner No.1 applied for conversion of the subject property to
Occupancy Class-I without informing the Respondent No.5 and
th
obtained an Order dated 20 April, 2021 from Respondent No.4.
22) He submitted that the Order has directly affected the
rights of the Respondent No.5 who has substantially invested in
the subject property. He further submitted that the Respondent
No.4 ought to have notified the Respondent No.5 and offered them
a hearing before passing the Order permitting the conversion of
the land to Occupancy Class-I. He submitted that even the
th
Government Notification dated 14 July, 2021 provides that lands
which are used for essential services, such as petrol pumps, ought
not to be converted into Occupancy Class-I.
23) The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioners had
also committed several breaches of the terms and conditions of
allotment by using the subject land for running a garage, motor
parts shops and clinic, which were contrary to the Government
th
Memorandum dated 12 September, 1990. He submitted that the
13

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Revisional Authority had rightly noted that the Conversion Order
th
dated 20 April, 2021 was passed without verifying Petitioners
adherence to the provisions of the Conversion Rules of 2019,
thereby rendering the Order unsustainable. He submitted that the
Revisional Authority had taken into account of relevant factors
including the original terms of allotment, statutory provisions,
Government Notifications, prior orders and larger public interest
and taken a view that was not only reasonable but also sustainable
in law, and therefore, did not warrant any interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
24) He further submitted that, if the Revisional Authority’s
th
Order dated 5 June, 2025 was set aside, there is no assurance
that the subject property would continue to be used as a petrol
pump, thereby defeating the very object of the original allotment.
He relied upon the following judgments in support of his
submissions:-
i) Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Ors. vs. Keshwar Lal
6
Chaudhari
7
ii) Lakshmi Narayan Guin & Ors. vs. Niranjan Modak
8
iii) Beg Raj Singh vs. State of UP .
6
53 L.W. 373 (FC)
7
(1985) 1 SCC 270
8
(2003) 1 SCC 726
14

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
25) He further submitted that in view of the afore-stated
facts, the Petition was devoid of any merit and it had failed to
demonstrate any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority. Consequently,
it deserves to be dismissed.
Submissions of Respondent No. 1 to 4 (State)
26) Ms. Usha Rahi, the learned AGP appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 supported the contentions of Respondent
No.5. She submitted that the Petitioners rights must be tested
strictly within the framework and terms and conditions of the
th
lease bid dated 5 October, 1993. She took exception to Petitioner
Nos.2 to 4, having been joined as Petitioners in the Writ Petition as
they had no privity of contract with Respondent No.1 to file the
present Writ Petition. She laid emphasis on the terms and
th
conditions of the lease as well as the sub-lease dated 14 May,
2003 whereby the Respondent No.4 granted NOC to the Petitioner
No.1 to sub-lease the subject property in favour of Respondent
No.5.
th
27) She submitted that the Government Resolution dated 14
July, 2021 was a subject matter of a separate Writ Petition and
was pending adjudication. It was therefore not appropriate for the
15

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Petitioners to indirectly assail the same in the present proceedings
without obtaining relief in that Petition.
28) She laid emphasis on the requirement of engaging a
handicap person in running the petrol pump as it formed integral
part of the allotment scheme. She relied upon the show cause
th
notice dated 8 February, 2011, which indicated that the
Petitioners had violated the terms and conditions of the
Government Memorandum by not employing any handicap or
disabled person at the petrol pump. She relied upon the Petitioners
st
reply dated 1 March, 2011, to submit that, the letter itself
demonstrated the non-compliance. She submitted that the
documents attached to the Petitioners communication revealed
that the Petitioner No.1 had attempted to deal with the subject
land by offering space to various third party’s institution such as
FPH, Haji Ali, NASEOH Chember, Equal Opportunities Chembur,
Dhishu Kalyan Kendra, Andheri and Sanskardham Vidyalaya,
Goregaon and Dignity Foundation, Topiwala Lane, Mumbai, and
had facilitated operation of a medical centre by his son on the
subject land.
29) She submitted that, such conduct of the Petitioner
amounted to clear violation of the terms and conditions of the
16

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
lessee. She relied upon the material on record to submit that
besides a petrol pump, the Petitioner No.1 had put up additional
construction such as a garage and motor parts sales shop and also
sub-let the said premises thereby constituting a breach of the lease
contentions. She submitted that in the Revision Proceedings
initiated by Respondent No.3 namely Revision Application
th
No.2622/CR28/G-3 dated 12 October, 2022, specific grounds
were raised that such category of lease granted on lease were not
th
covered under the Notification dated 8 March, 2019. In their
th th
replies dated 15 October, 2022 and 8 November, 2022 the
Petitioners had admitted the land being used for commercial
purposes and for conducting a private business of sale of petrol
products. She submitted that the Petitioner admitted justifying
the activity as permissible falling under the essential services. She
submitted that the Petitioners were also in breach of lease
conditions by converting a proprietary concern into the
partnership firm without obtaining permission from Respondent
No.1.
th
30) She relied upon the Government Resolution dated 14
July, 2021 to submit that lands allotted for essential services
cannot be converted from Class-II or leasehold category into Class-
17

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
I and that the subject land squarely falls within the ambit of policy
and could not have been converted.
31) She submitted that in view of the afore-stated facts, the
Petitioners had failed to make out any case for interference with
the order of the Revisional Authority under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and the Petition was accordingly liable to be
dismissed.
Reasons and Conclusion:
32) I have heard the learned senior counsel Mr. Jahagirdar,
learned senior counsel Mr. Girish Godbole appearing for the
Petitioners, learned senior counsel Mr. Pankaj Savant, appearing
for Respondent No.5 and Ms. Usha Rahi, AGP, appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 4. I have also carefully perused the entire
record. Two questions that arise for determination in the present
Petition are as follows:-
(a) Whether the concerned Authority could apply the
Government Resolution dated 14th July, 2021
retrospectively so as to invalidate and set aside the
conversion order passed prior to the issuance of the
Government Resolution? and
(b) Whether the Respondent No.5, being a sub-lease, has
18

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
any locus standi to prefer a Revision Application before the
concerned authority for challenging the conversion order
whereby the leasehold lands allotted to the Petitioners was
converted to Occupancy Class-I land?
Re: Question (a): Retrospective application of the GR
33) I find merit in the submission of the learned senior
counsel Mr. Jahagirdar appearing for the Petitioners that, the
th
Government Resolution dated 14 July, 2021 is merely an
executive instruction and cannot be applied retrospectively; it
must necessarily be read as operating only prospectively. A
th
perusal of the Government Resolution dated 14 July, 2021 bears
testament to this submission and proposition to be operating only
prospectively from the wordings stated therein. In the
introductory paragraph, the Government Resolution states as
under:-
“Accordingly, the Government premises provided to
companies/institutions/individuals for essential services
(e.g. petrol pump/CNG Gas etc.), if converted for other
purposes in the future, the intention of the Government to
provide the premises for that purpose and thus public
interest will not be achieved and the public will be
19

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
inconvenienced and the revenue of the Government will be
lost.”
In the paragraph with the heading “ Government Decision ” :
“Occupiers of Government premises provided for any such
essential services in accordance with the continuous use of
land/plot provided by the Government to various
institutions, Central and State Government departments,
Corporation, individuals for providing public conveniences,
facilities and essential services cannot be converted from
Class-II/into occupier Class-I in lien of the lessee. Also,
henceforth, while allotting land for essential services, this
condition should be clearly mentioned in the land allotment
order.”
34) The expressions “in the future” and “henceforth” negate
the submissions of the Respondents that, it reflects a binding
policy decision to be effected retrospectively. Consequently, the
reliance on the Government Resolution by the Revisional
Authority to the Petitioners case is unsubstantiated and
unwarranted.
35) The reliance placed upon the judgment in Vanshakti
(supra) clearly applies to the present case. The Conversion Rules
20

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
of 2019 framed under the MLRC, set out the eligibility conditions,
procedure and consequences of conversion of leasehold lands to
Occupancy Class-I. It does not contain any restriction on
conversion of lands that are being used as petrol pumps.
36) The restriction upon the conversion of lands set out in the
th
Government Resolution dated 14 July, 2021 is introduced for the
first time. Since this restriction does not find any place in either
the MLRC or Conversion Rules of 2019, it is nothing else but
purely an executive policy decision. Therefore, the contention that
the executive decision should be effected retrospectively and
thereby modify the conversion order would be wholly untenable. It
is a well settled principle of law that all executive decisions
operate prospectively unless expressly stated. The Government
th
Resolution dated 14 July, 2021 does not expressly state that it
will operate retrospectively.
37) The reliance placed on Suchitra Component Ltd. (supra)
that, an order which was valid and lawful when passed cannot be
invalidated by subsequent change in policy, supports the aforesaid
view. It evident from the report that the Conversion Order dated
th
20 April, 2021 was passed by the Competent Authority namely
the Collector under the Conversion Rules of 2019 in accordance
21

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
with the law. The order is therefore not open to challenge as there
were no restrictions or policy decision of the Government at that
time.
38) I find no merit in the contention of Respondent Nos.1 to 4
that the Conversion Rules of 2019 do not apply to the present case.
No material is placed before this Court to show that the
Conversion Rules of 2019 would not be applicable to the present
case. I find merit in the submission of the Petitioners counsel that
any holder of land is entitled to get the leasehold land converted
into the Occupancy Class-I after completion of 5 years of lease.
39) In the present case, the Petitioners were lessees of the
subject property for nearly 30 years and consequently were
entitled to its conversion. I also cannot ignore that, pursuant to
the Conversion Order, the Petitioner No.1 has paid a substantial
premium of Rs. 6,39,79,790/-. Such payment has crystallized his
right to ownership over the subject property much prior to the
Government Notification. The reliance placed on the decision in
Uday Pratap Singh (supra), for the proposition that the vested
right in the property cannot be taken away by an executive order
without authority of law, will squarely apply to this case.
22

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Re Question (b): Locus standi of Respondent No. 5
40) With regard to the locus standi of Respondent No.5, I find
merit in the submission of the Petitioners counsel that, the issue of
conversion from leasehold rights to Occupancy Class-I is a matter
between the lessor namely the State and the lessee namely the
Petitioner. The sub-lessee namely the BPCL will have absolutely no
right, title or interest in the subject property. The terms of sub-
th
lease dated 14 May, 2003 revealed that, Respondent No.5’s
interest is only limited to the structures constructed on the
subject property. The terms and conditions of the sub-lease
expressly provide that the acts of direct payment of rent on behalf
of the Petitioner will not confer any special right or any right
whatsoever on the sub-lessee namely the BPCL. Even the
nd
Collector’s Order dated 2 June, 2001 whereby permission to sub-
lease was granted in favour of Respondent No.5 (BPCL) expressly
provided that, the permission granted for sub-leasing the subject
property will not give any right in the subject property to
Respondent No.5.
41) The record further reveals that the sub-lease in favour of
th
the Respondent No.5 (BPCL) had expired on 11 September, 2020.
th
The Conversion Order was, however, passed much later on 20
23

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
April, 2021. It is therefore clear that, on the date of passing of the
Conversion Order, the sub-lease in favour of the BPCL had already
expired. I find no merit in the contention that the Respondent No.5
continued to be a sub-lessee by holding over. The Respondent
No.5’s interest is limited to the structures on the subject property.
The communications addressed by the Petitioner with the
Respondent No.5 also reveal that, the Petitioners had informed the
Respondent No.5 that, he did not wish to renew the sub-lease in
favour of the Respondent No.5. In fact, the Petitioner had
requested the Respondent No.5 to convert the petrol pump from ‘A’
site (company owned) to ‘B’ site namely dealer owned.
42) In the aforesaid circumstances, I find merit in the
contention of the Petitioner that, the Respondent No.5 was not
continued as a sub-lessee after the expiry of the Agreement and
cannot claim rights by holding over.
43) I do not find any merit in the Respondent No.5’s
contention that the Respondent No.5 was involved and was a
party to the proceedings before the authorities as well as the Court
and consequently their rights in the subject property have been
recognized by not only the authorities but also by the High Court.
In my view, the Respondent No.5 supported the Petitioner in the
24

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
proceedings before the authorities as well as the High Court since
it was contractually obligated to pay the lease rent as per the
terms and conditions of the sub-lease agreement. In my view, the
participation in proceeding by itself does not give any right, title
or interest to Respondent No.5 in the subject property so far as the
proceedings for a conversion of leasehold land to Occupancy Class-
I proceedings are concerned.
44) The reliance placed on the judgment in Lakshmi Narayan
Guin (supra), for the proposition that the person who is not
formally a party to the proceedings, but whose rights are directly
and substantially affected by the Order in such proceedings has
locus standi to challenge the same is misplaced in the facts of the
present case. The LOI issued by the Respondent No.5 is
abundantly clear. It required the Petitioner to procure a suitable
plot of land either by purchase or on lease for more than a period
of 10 years. The Petitioner No.1 had accordingly opted for land on
lease and accordingly entered into an agreement with the
Respondent No.5. Thus, the conversion of the land from leasehold
to Occupancy Class-I cannot be challenged by the Respondent
No.5. In the event, that the agreement to run the petrol pump is
not renewed, the Respondent No.5 has a remedy before the Civil
25

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Court to recover the losses or damages, if any, caused to it on
account of the investments made by it on the subject property.
Respondent No.5, however, can have no right to challenge the
Conversion Order itself.
45) The Suo Motu Revision Proceedings initiated by
Respondent No.3 is also unwarranted. Record indicates that the
same was initiated belatedly after more than 540 days of passing
the Conversion Order. The grounds for initiating the same are not
substantiated by any previous complaints or breaches that
continued till the date of the application for conversion. It appears
that the authority has attempted to rake up non-issuance in the
Suo Motu Revision Proceedings. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have
not produced any documentary evidence to prove the continuing
breaches by the Petitioner, which by itself would disentitle him for
the conversion. On the contrary, the inspection report submitted
nd
by the Tahsildar, Andheri, dated 22 December, 2020 after a
physical inspection of the site clearly revealed that, there was no
th
breach of any condition of the lease agreement dated 5 October,
1993.
46) The Revisional Authority established under Section 257
of the MLRC is a supervisory jurisdiction. It does not have plenary
26

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
jurisdiction to adjudicate all disputes that may arise between the
lessee and the sub-lessee or the civil rights between them. The
Revisional Authority cannot adjudicate rights that are required to
be established by a Civil Court.
47) In my view, by adjudicating upon the contractual rights
between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5, the Revisional
Authority travelled beyond its jurisdiction under Section 257 of
the MLRC and thereby constituted a jurisdictional error.
48) The reliance placed by Respondent No.5’s counsel upon
the judgment in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul (supra) does not
assist the Respondent in the present context. The Federal Court
was concerned with the question whether a change in law affects
pending jurisdictional proceedings. In my view, this judgment has
no bearing on whether the Revisional Authority under the MLRC
can expand its jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed by the
Statute to adjudicate civil disputes inter se between the lessee and
the sub-lessee.
49) The record also indicates that, the Revisional Authority
relied upon the contentions of the show cause notice and findings
which were not based on any independent material or fresh
inspection report to raise the allegations made in the show cause
27

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
notice. The impugned Order fails to explain the basis on which the
notice was issued, especially when the Tahsildar’s inspection
nd
report dated 22 December, 2020 was on the record. Moreover,
the said Tahsildar’s inspection report was not contradicted by any
subsequent inspection of the subject property or any evidence to
substantiate the allegations in the show cause notice.
50) In my view, the suo motu action and entertaining of the
Intervention Application or Revisional Application by the
Respondent No.5 is thoroughly misplaced and clearly an
afterthought. I also do not find any merit in the contention that,
the proprietary concern was converted to a partnership without
the permission from the concerned authority. There is no material
on record produced by the Respondents to demonstrate that, the
formation of the partnership resulted in any sort of transfer or
assignment of the leasehold interest in the subject property by the
Petitioner No.1. No documentary evidence is produced to show
that any authority had raised any of the objections and had taken
action either against the Petitioner No.1 for breaches or against
the concerned authority for having failed to take action for any
alleged breach against the Petitioner No.1. I also find no merit to
remand the matter to the Collector, as Respondent No.5 has no
28

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
locus to be heard.
51) For the reasons set out herein-above, the impugned
th
common Order dated 5 June, 2025 passed by the Respondent
No.2 in Suo Motu Revision Application No2622/CR28/G-3 and in
Revision Application No. 2623/10/966/CR12/G-3 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
th
52) The Conversion Order dated 20 April, 2021 passed by
the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, converting the subject
property admeasuring 1127 sq. mts. at Village Versova, Taluka
Andheri, on plot No.5, City Survey No.161, Mumbai Suburban
District from leasehold occupancy to Occupancy Class-I in favour
of Petitioner No.1, is hereby restored and shall be treated as valid
and subsisting.
53) Petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in the above
terms.
54) There shall be no order as to costs.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
55) At this stage, Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, learned AGP
appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - State and Mr. Pankaj
29

Sbw oswp-4891-2025(J)
Savant, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.5, seeks stay
of the Order.
Ms. Aneesha Munshi, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners opposed the grant of stay.
In view of what is stated in the Order, stay is rejected.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
List of Judgments Relied upon:
1) Vanshakti & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC Online Bom 3061
2) Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. 1994 Supp (3) SCC
451
3) Suchitra Component Ltd. Vs Comissioner Central Excise, Gunter 1994
Supp (3) SCC 451
4) Ananta Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2022)
SCC OnLine Bom 1199.
5) MTNL vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 9 SCC 92.
6) Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Ors. Vs Keshwar Lal Chaudhari 53
L.W. 373 (FC)
7) Lakshmi Narayan Guin & Ors. Vs Niranjan Modak (1985) 1 SCC 270
8) Beg Raj Singh Vs State of UP (2003) 1 SCC 726
30