M/S M P Homes vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-AS:22882
WP.1561.2022.doc
Ajay
IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2022
M/s. M.P. Homes .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Drupad Patil a/w Mr. Navitkumar S. Pansare, Advocates for
Petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Railkar a/w. Ms. Devashri G. Karandikar, Advocates
for Respondent No.5.
Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondents – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : JUNE 08, 2026.
JUDGEMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mrs.
Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent – State and Mr. Railkar,
learned Advocate of Respondent No. 5.
2. Present Petition challenges Order dated 11.11.2020 passed
by Respondent No.1 – State directing Petitioner to deposit 100% of
Ready Reckoner valuation for regularisation of change of user to Non –
Agricultural purpose and 75% of Ready Reckoner valuation for
regularization of conveyance as transfer premium on account of
Petitioner’s purchase of two parcels of land owned by Petitioner
bearing CTS Nos. 456/1 and 456/2 admeasuring 249.6 square meters
and 111.2 square meters respectively (for short “subject lands”). The
1 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
impugned order is appended at Exhibit “A” page No. 23 to the Petition.
3. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of present Petition are as
under:-
3.1. One Savlaram Trimbak Natu was perpetual lessee in respect
of one parcel of land out of subject lands bearing CTS No.456/1
admeasuring 249.6 square meters which was classified under Tenure
“D” during pre – independence era. On 02.05.1934, after the demise of
Savlaram Trimbak Natu, name of his wife one Smt. Sitabai Savlaram
Trimbak was mutated in revenue record. On 14.06.1950 and
08.06.1953 Sitabai sold some part of subject lands vide registered Sale
Deeds to one Dwarkabai Vishwanath Joshi and one Ramabai Atmaram
Athavane. After their demise, names of their legal heirs were mutated
in revenue record. Petitioner executed registered Sale Deed dated
10.09.2013 and purchased these parcel of subject lands from the legal
heirs of Dwarkabai Vishwanath Joshi and Ramabai Atmaram
Athavane.
3.2. Shridhar Trimbak Natu was also the perpetual lessee in
respect of one more parcel of land bearing CTS No.456/2 admeasuring
111.2 square meters which was also classified under Tenure “D” during
the pre – independence era. On 30.05.1931, Shridhar Trimbak Natu
transferred this parcel of land to one Purushottam Narayan Gone. On
19.11.1947, this land was further transferred to one Gopal Bhikaji
2 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
Phatak and later transferred to one Sushilabai Vishnu Kulkarni. On
17.04.1997, Sushilabai expired and her heirs were brought on record.
On 10.09.2013, Petitioner purchased this parcel of land vide registered
Sale Deed from heirs of Sushilabai.
3.3.
Thus Petitioner purchased the subject lands.
3.4. Petitioner obtained requisite permissions from Respondent
No.2 – Corporation to develop the subject lands. In 2021, after the
development was complete, Respondent No.2 issued Part Occupancy
Certificate in respect of Petitioner’s newly developed multi – storey
buildings. Private Respondent No.5 addressed complaint dated
03.11.2017 to Tehsildar, Panvel (for short “Respondent No.4”) after
which Petitioner filed application dated 20.11.2017 before Respondent
No. 4 seeking change of tenure from “D” to “A” with respect to subject
lands. Respondent No.4 forwarded his report along with Petitioner’s
application seeking change of tenure to District Collector (for short
“Respondent No.3”) who addressed letter dated 03.03.2018 to
Petitioner stating that in view of Government Resolution dated
27.08.2019, the application cannot be allowed. Private Respondent
No.5 addressed further complaints dated 07.06.2018, 23.10.2018 and
14.11.2018 to Respondent No.3 seeking action against Petitioner for
violation of terms of original lease under which subject lands were
leased to original occupants. Petitioner filed its reply subsequent to
3 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
which Respondent No.3 conducted hearing and passed order dated
26.03.2019 forwarding Petitioner’s application to State Government
seeking appropriate orders and directions. Being aggrieved by the twin
orders dated 03.03.2018 and 26.03.2019 both passed by Respondent
No.3, Petitioner filed Revision Application No.243 of 2020 before
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division who passed order dated
30.09.2020, and held that Petitioner’s application cannot be
considered since the same it was before Respondent No.1 – Minister.
3.5.
Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed Revision Application No.
239 of 2020 before Respondent No.1 – Minister. By the impugned
order dated 11.11.2020, Respondent No.1 partly allowed Petitioner’s
application and directed Petitioner to deposit of 75% of Ready
Reckoner valuation of subject land towards transfer of subject lands
and 100% of Ready Reckoner valuation of subject lands towards
change of use of subject lands to Non – Agricultural purpose. On
16.12.2020 under protest, Petitioner deposited sum of
Rs.1,20,75,145/- with Respondent No.3 and was issued challan.
However being aggrieved, Petitioner filed present Petition to avail the
order dated 11.11.2020 and seeks refund of the deposited amount of
Rs.1,20,75,145/- paid in pursuance of the said order.
4. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioner would submit that
the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 passed by Respondent No.1 is
4 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
bad in law, baseless, passed without due consideration of facts and law
and deserves to be set aside. He would submit that Respondent Nos.3
and 4 did not contest classification of subject land as Tenure “D” which
is described as “Lands held on perpetual lease”. He would submit that
Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1879 (for short “BLRC”) and Bombay
Land Revenue Rules, 1921 (for short “Bombay Rules, 1921”) were
governing land revenue law prior to present land revenue laws coming
into force. He would submit that Sections 68 to 73 of BLRC discussess
“nature of occupancy of land” and these provisions state that unless
otherwise provided, occupancy of land would be transferrable and
heritable. He would submit that the Bombay Rules, 1921 enumerate a
list of 7 tenures. He would submit that subject lands are classified as
Tenure “D” in revenue record under Rule 43 of Bombay Rules, 1921.
He would submit that that perusal of BLRC, 1879 would show that
land granted in perpetuity is freely transferable without any embargo.
4.1. He would submit that presently, BLRC is repealed and in its
place Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “MLRC”) is
enacted and applicable. He would submit that Section 29 of the MLRC
states that Class – I land is land held in perpetuity and freely
transferable. He would submit that subject lands were granted in
perpetuity and are freely transferrable as per both land revenue laws
i.e. MLRC and BLRC, hence occupants of subject lands are rightly
classified as Class – I holders, therefore Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
5 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
cannot levy transfer fee or any charges for transfer of the subject lands.
He would submit that Serial No. 3 in the table enumerated in Rule
3(4)(B) of Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class
II and Leasehold Lands into Occupancy Class I) Rules, 2019 (for short
“MLRC Conversion Rules, 2019”) stipulates premium of 25% to be
levied for lands held on leasehold rights for residential purposes hence
Respondent No.1 ought to have at the highest levied premium of 25%
of the market value of the subject lands upon Petitioner for change of
user of subject lands to NA purpose.
4.2. He would submit that Government Resolutions dated
20.02.2016, 08.09.1983 and 27.08.2014 relied upon by Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 do not have any bearing or relevance on the Petitioner’s
case. He would submit that since property extract document of subject
lands records the name of purchaser as holder of the subject lands, the
subject lands cannot possibly vest in the State Government. He would
submit that provisions of Section 73A(1) of BLRC cannot apply to
Petitioner’s case. He would submit that Rule 35 of Maharashtra Land
Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971 pertains to “Long
term leases for non agriculture land” and deals with sanctions for grant
of long term leases of land for Non – Agricultural purpose, hence this
Rule does not apply to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. He would
submit that this Rule does not state that 100% of Ready Reckoner
market value of subject lands ought to be paid for seeking change of
6 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
user to Non – Agricultural purpose. Hence the impugned order levying
100% market value for regularisation of change or user is incorrectly
levied upon the Petitioner.
4.3. He would submit that Government Resolutions dated
20.02.2016, 08.09.1983 and 27.08.2014 do not have any application
to the facts of Petitioner’s case. He would submit that Government
Resolution dated 08.09.1983 states that any person who is a Class II
Occupant and alienates the land shall pay 75% of market value of the
land to State Government and the purchaser shall hold the land as
Class II Occupant with restrictions on transfer. He would submit that
this Government Resolution does not apply to Petitioner’s case since
subject lands are held in perpetuity and freely transferrable as per Rule
43 of Bombay Rules, 1921 and under Section 29 of MLRC. Hence he
would argue that levy of 75% of Ready Recknor Valuation of
regularisation of conveyance as transfer premium is not applicable to
Petitioner’s case. He would submit that Government Resolution dated
27.08.2014 was issued in respect of Tenure “D” situated in Raigad
district and pertains to payment of 25% of prevalent Ready Reckoner
rate as on 01.01.2014 for renewal of lease and hence this Government
Resolution cannot apply to the Petitioner’s case as well. He would
submit that Government Resolution dated 20.02.2016 issued directions
to set occupancy price and lease fees for lands, hence it seeks to bring
uniformity in these amounts.
7 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
4.4. He would submit that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 recorded
transfer of subject lands between Petitioner’s predecessors – in – title
without any objections and did not levy premium of 75% of market
value of land towards transfer. He would submit that Respondent Nos.
3 and 4 raised this objection only when Petitioner commenced
development on subject lands. He would submit that Petitioner
obtained all permissions and approvals from Planning Authority i.e.
Respondent No.2 – Corporation and even Part Occupancy Certificate
was issued. He would submit that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 accepted
previous transfers of subject lands which were duly recorded in the
revenue record without raising any objection or levy of transfer fees
therefore Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 now cannot levy a premium of
175% of the market value of the subject lands upon Petitioner towards
change of user to NA and transfer premium. He would submit that by
Government Resolution dated 15.03.2021 land Occupancy of Tenure
“B” can be converted to Tenure “A” subject to payment of premium,
which is 75% of the total amount paid in respect of conversion, which
the Petitioner is willing to forfeit. On the basis of above submissions,
he would urge the Court to allow the present Petition and direct refund
of the balance amount paid by Petitioner in pursuance of Order dated
11.11.2020.
5. PER CONTRA, Ms. Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 – State would submit that the impugned
8 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
order is correct, legal and passed with due consideration of facts and
documents and deserves to be upheld. She would submit that subject
lands were leased for a period of 99 years for the purpose of planting
trees and the user of the land could not be changed without permission
of the State Government. She would submit that Petitioner did not
seek permission and suppressed material facts from the Planning
Authority in order to obtain sanction plan and begin construction upon
the subject lands. She would argue that Petitioner obtained sanction
plan by suppressing material facts and manipulating the lease deed to
state that subject lands were purchased by Petitioner from private
individuals. She would submit that Petitioner sought permission for
transfer of ownership and change of user only after the Planning
Authority directed it to do so.
5.1. She would submit that Respondent No.1 passed order dated
11.11.2020 allowing transfer and change of user of subject lands
subject to Petitioner depositing the unearned income from the subject
lands and directed District Collector to calculate the same and
communicate it to the Petitioner. She would submit that District
Collector calculated the amount and addressed letter dated 14.12.2020
to Petitioner calling upon it to deposit the same. She would submit that
Petitioner deposited the amount with the State Government and
submitted the challan with the District Collector and then filed the
present Petition.
9 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
5.2. She would submit that thereafter Collector, Raigad
addressed letter dated 24.12.2020 directing Respondent No.4 and
Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Panvel to record Petitioner’s
name in the revenue record of subject lands. She would submit that
Petitioner’s name was duly mutated in the record of rights of subject
lands. She would submit that suit lands were sold and transferred by
the erstwhile owners to Petitioner without obtaining permission of the
State Government. She would submit that perusal of the property card,
would show that the lease period of subject lands expired on
05.06.1961 and was not renewed further, hence ownership of the
subject lands reverted back to the original owner i.e. State
Government. Therefore she would submit that permission from State
Government was required for development of subject land. She would
submit that subject land were classified as “agricultural” for the
purpose of “plantation of trees”, hence they could not be used for any
other purpose and if so, permission from the State Government was
required to to be taken in accordance with law.
5.3. She would submit that Chapter VI of BLRC deals with
“Grant, Use and Relinquishment of Unalienated Land” and Section
73A(1) provides that any transfer or use other than for which it is
allotted requires necessary permission from the Competent Authority
to transfer the land. She would submit that Rule 43 of the Bombay
Rules, 1921 does not apply to the facts of the present case instead,
10 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
Rule 55 of the Bombay Rules, 1921 would apply. She would submit
that Rule 55 states that un-aliented land to which no other rule applies
shall be disposed of by the Collector by and in any manner and period
subject to conditions if any. She would submit that since allotment of
subject lands and considering the tenure of the lease for the purpose of
plantation of trees as per Rule 55 of Bombay Rules 1921, the
ownership and possession of the subject lands remains with the State
Government. She would submit that onus is on Petitioner to prove the
subject lands were recorded under Rule 43 of Bombay Rules, 1921 and
Petitioner ought to have produced the prescribed documents as per
Rule 43(1)(a) of the Bombay Rules, 1921. She would submit that List
of Tenures appended at Exhibit “M” of Petition is not a certified copy
neither it is a Government Resolution / Circular.
5.4. She would submit that since Petitioner violated the terms of
the lease, and State Government was entitled to take possession of the
subject lands. However, since Petitioner had developed the subject
lands and even sold flats to third parties in the project, Respondent
No.1 passed the impugned order levying transfer charge and
regularization charge stating that State Government possessed power
under Rule 35 of Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government
Land) Rules, 1971 which provides that on payment of 100% of Ready
Reckoner valuation the tenure could be regularised.
11 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
5.5. She would submit that in order to curb misuse of land tenure
by lessees, State Government has issued three Notifications dated
08.09.1983, 27.08.2014 and 01.02.2016 under which Petitioner is
charged 75% of unearned income of the subject lands as transfer
premium for illegal holding unauthorised land and 100% for
regularisation of change of user to Non – Agricultural. She would
submit that both charges levied are in accordance with law and as per
the policies of the State Government, hence there is no justified ground
for Petitioner to seek refund of the amounts paid towards transfer
premium and change of user of subject lands. She would submit that
impugned order dated 11.11.2020 is passed to regularize transfer of
subject lands and regularize change of user, hence it is in the interest
of the Petitioner itself.
5.6. She would submit that subject lands were standing in the
name of State Government and were Class II land, hence ownership of
subject lands was with the State Government as per Rule 55 of Bombay
Rules, 1921. She would submit that post independence, suit lands
stood governed by MLRC and rules framed thereunder and Rule 3(4)
of MLRC Conversion Rules, 2019 provides that if there is no violation
of the terms of the lease deed, then upon inspection of the Class II
occupancy land, it may be converted to Class I occupancy by the
Competent Authority upon payment of Nazrana. She would urge me to
uphold the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 and dismiss the present
12 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
Petition or in the alternative direct Petitioner to pay 25% premium on
Ready Reckoner valuation of suit lands as per provisions of MLRC
Conversion Rules, 2019.
6. Mr. Railkar, learned Advocate for private Respondent No.5
would oppose the Petition and submit that subject lands were
transferred at least 5 times ultimately vesting with Petitioner
purchasing the same. He would submit that any execution of Sale Deed
to transfer subject lands is illegal since they are owned by the State
Government. He would submit that on 03.11.2017 Respondent No.5
filed complaint with Respondent No.4 regarding Petitioner developing
the subject lands. He would submit that on 20.11.2017 Petitioner filed
application before Respondent No.4 seeking change of tenure from
Tenure “D” to Tenure “A” and Respondent No.4 directed Circle Officer,
Panvel to file his Report. He would submit that Petitioner submited his
say stating that he was ready and willing to pay requisite charges
towards regularization and conversion of subject lands, hence
Petitioner was duly aware that subject lands belonged to State
Government and his subsequent filing of application for regularization
is therefore an afterthought.
6.1. He would submit that since no action was taken, on
15.01.2018 Respondent No.5 filed another complaint before
Respondent No.4 and addressed letter dated 16.01.2018 to Circle
13 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
Officer Panvel seeking an opportunity to be heard which was
subsequently granted. He would submit that at that time Petitioner
was ready and willing to pay all necessary premiums however
presently, Petitioner has taken a contradictory approach and sought to
challenge the entire amount paid by him in respect of regularization of
change of user to Non Agricultural and transfer permission.
6.2.
He would submit that Petitioner purchased subject lands and
began development on the same without seeking permission from the
State Government. He would submit that Petitioner was fully aware
that subject lands were leased by the pre – independence Provincial
Government and that lease had expired in 1961, thereby ownership of
the subject lands reverting back to Respondent No.1 – State. He would
submit that Petitioner ought to have therefore taken permission from
the State Government before purchase of subject lands. He would
submit that Petitioner is therefore precluded from seeking reduction of
premium paid towards regularization, illegal purchase and change of
user.
7. I have heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Ms.
Nimbalkar learned AGP for Respondent No.3 and 4 and Mr. Railkar
learned Advocate for Respondent No.5 and perused the record of the
case with their able assistance. Submissions made by the learned
Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court.
14 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
8. At the outset, short point for determination is whether
Petitioner is entitled to refund of 175% premium paid on Ready
Reckoner valuation of subject lands towards change of user to Non
Agriculture and transfer premium. It is seen that Petitioner has shown
its bonafides by depositing the premium amounts as directed by
Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.3, however has raised questions
as to legality of the levy and its quantification in accordance with law.
9. It is seen that pre – independence, subject lands were
perpetually leased to predecessor – in – title for plantation of trees and
were classified as Tenure “D” i.e. lands granted in perpetuity. It is seen
that Rule 43(1)(a) of Bombay Rules, 1921 provides that lands granted
in perpetuity shall be transferrable and Rule 43(1)(b) of Bombay
Rules, 1921 states that if land is assessed for agriculture, the
assessment shall be altered in accordance with law. Rule 43 of Bombay
Rules, 1921 is relevant and reproduced hereunder for further
reference: -
43. (1) Save in special cases which the Collector with the
sanction of Government otherwise or directs, or in localities
falling under rule 44, land for building sites shall be granted in
accordance, with the following provisions: -
(a) The land shall be granted in perpetuity subject to the
provisions of the first paragraph of section 68, and shall be
transferable.
(b) Where the land has already been assessed for agriculture,
the assessment shall be altered under whichever of rules 81 to
85 has been applied to the locality.
(c) Where the land has not been assessed the Collector shall fix
the assessment in accordance with the principles laid down for
15 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
alteration of assessment in rules 81 to 86 and the provisions of
the said rules shall as far as may be, apply.
(d) All such assessments shall be fixed for the period specified
in Rule 87 (a) and may be commuted when they do not exceed
one rupee in accordance with the provisions of rule 88.
(2) In the case of such grants an agreement in form F or form
H, as the Collector may deem fit, shall ordinarily be taken from
the person intending to become the occupant, and in the case
of land in development schemes undertaken by Government in
the Bombay Suburban District an agreement shall be taken in
form HH. In the case of grants in which an agreement in Form
H is to be taken, the Collector may, with the approval of the
Commissioner annex such additional conditions to the grant as
the Collector thinks fit.
(3) When the land is granted on inalienable tenure, (99) the
clause specified in, form I shall be added to the agreement.
(4) The declaration below the agreement shall be subscribed by
at least one respectable witness and by the patel and village
accountant of the village in which the land is situate.
10. Rule 43 of Bombay Rules, 1921 was enacted prior to
Independence and in the present case, since subject lands were leased
to lessees for agricultural purposes prior to Independence, this Rule
would be applicable to subject lands during that era. It is seen that
Rule 43(1)(a) of Bombay Rules, 1921 does not mandate permission of
the Government nor payment of premium to transfer lands classified as
Tenure “D” nor does the aforementioned Rule hinder change of user of
such land. Therefore, original lessees were well within their rights to
transfer the subject lands without permission of the State Government.
It is seen from the Property Register of Panvel City, District Kolaba
(presently known as Raigad) appended to the Petition at Exhibit “M”
page No.72 that subject lands were classified as Tenure “D” are
governed by Rule 43 of Bombay Rules, 1921 and it has changed hands
16 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
at lease 5 time prior to they being purchased by the Petitioner.
11. It is further seen that post – independence, State
Government enacted MLRC, 1966 which repealed BLRC, 1879 and as
such provisions of MLRC, 1966 are now applicable to subject lands . It
is seen that Section 29 of MLRC enumerates 3 classes of occupants as
follows:- (i) Occupants - Class I, (ii) Occupants - Class II and (iii)
Government lessees. Attention is drawn to Section 29(2)(b) of the
MLRC which provides that, Class I Occupants are those who,
immediately before the commencement of MLRC, held land without
any restrictions on the right to transfer in accordance with the
provisions of any law relating to land revenue in force in any part of
the State immediately before such commencement. This provision
applies squarely to the subject lands in the present case. It is seen that
by virtue of classification of Tenure “D” and Rule 43 of Bombay Rules
1921, subject lands fall within the purview of Section 29(2)(b) of
MLRC as there were no restrictions on transfer of such lands as per
revenue laws prior to commencement of MLRC i.e. BLRC and Bombay
Rules, 1921. However since subject lands were granted in perpetuity
and were freely transferrable, it is seen that subject lands are clearly
covered under Section 29(2)(b) of MLRC.
12. It is seen from the Property Cards pertaining to the subject
lands appended at Exhibits “B” and “C” to the Petition that subject
17 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
lands are classified as Tenure “D”, therefore Rule 43 of Bombay Rules
1921 squarely applies to subject lands and hence no premium nor
permission from the State Government for transfer is required to be
paid and or levied for transfer of subject lands . It is seen that
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 took no objection to the previous 5 transfers
between predecessors – in – title of Petitioner neither was any
premium levied upon them hence Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are
precluded from raising any objection to Petitioner’s purchase of subject
lands and mandate levy of transfer premium for regularisation of
conveyance. Mr. Patil would draw my attention to paragraph No.3 in
the Affidavit – in – Reply dated 11.08.2023 filed by Respondent Nos.3
and 4 stating that subject lands are classified as Tenure “D” and can be
alienated without prior permission of Respondent No.3. If that be the
case then levy of transfer premium by the State is illegal and
unjustified on the admission of the State functionaries itself.
Respondent No.3 ought to have examined position of land revenue
laws prior to enactment of the MLRC, 1966 with respect to subject
lands to effectively determine whether transfer premium is to be levied
upon transfer of suit lands. It is seen that contrary stand is taken by
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in its reply which is contrary to the finding
returned in the impugned order levying 75% transfer provisions for
regularisation of conveyance of Petitioner. The provisions of BLRC,
Bombay Rules 1921 and MLRC are clear and unambiguous to the
18 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
extent that subject lands are freely transferable and no transfer
premium nor permission from Collector is required to be taken in
respect of the same and the same is admitted by Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 before this Court as well.
13.
It is seen that Ms. Nimbalkar has relied upon Rule 35 of
Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules,
1971 to contend that State Government possesses power to grant land
and regularize the tenure upon realization of 100% of Ready Reckoner
valuation. It is seen that this Rule does not pertain to change of tenure
of land, change of use nor regularization of land instead this provision
pertains to grant of lease for unoccupied land and renewal thereof. The
aforesaid Rule 35 does not provide for levy of 100% premium towards
regularization of tenure. Therefore, the submission of Ms. Nimbalkar
cannot be countenanced and accepted at all as applicable to
Petitioner’s case.
14. It is seen that Ms. Nimbalkar would rely on a number
Government Resolutions viz; dated 08.09.1983, 27.08.2014 and
20.02.2016 to justify levy of 175% premium towards change of user to
Non Agricultural and regularization of conveyance as transfer premium
of subject lands . It is seen that Government Resolution dated
08.09.1983 pertains to Class II Occupancy lands and provides that
alienor shall pay to the State Government 50% of unearned income
19 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
and hold the land as Occupancy Class II. However reliance on this
Government Resolution is misplaced since subject lands are classified
as Occupancy Class I, hence this Government Resolution cannot apply
to subject lands. It is seen that Government Resolution dated
27.08.2014 pertains Class – II lands situated in Raigad district,
however suit lands are classified Occupancy Class – I, hence this
Government Resolution also does not apply to the subject lands. Next
Government Resolution dated 01.02.2016 pertains to directions issued
by the State Government to bring about uniformity in occupancy
charges and lease amounts and this Government Resolution nowhere
mention levy of 75% premium for regularisation of conveyance as
transfer premium neither does it mention levy of 100% premium for
change of user, hence reliance placed on this Government Resolution is
completely misplaced and cannot be accepted.
15.
It is seen that private complainant being Respondent No.5
supported the submissions of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 however
Respondent No. 5 is neither an officer of the State Government nor
does Respondent No. 5 claim to be affected by the development of
subject lands by Petitioner. Therefore, Respondent No. 5 has failed to
show his reasons to interfere with Petitioner’s development of subject
lands . Perusal of record would show that Respondent No. 5 made
representations before the revenue authorities who duly considered
and acted upon the same in accordance with law. If Respondent No. 5
20 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
was aggrieved by directions by Revenue Authorities, he ought to have
taken steps in accordance with law as available to him and in
accordance with law. Prima facie it is seen that Respondent No.5 does
not have any locus before this Court in regard to the issue at hand. In
any event the State and its functionaries have adequately opposed and
argued the present Petition.
16.
It is seen that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not object to
previous transfers of subject lands hence there can be no justifiable
reason for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to now object to Petitioner’s
purchase of subject lands and levy transfer premium @ 75% of the
Ready Reckoner Value . Perusal of the record and relevant legislation
would show that there is no provision in pre – independence land
revenue law nor post -independence land revenue law that imposes
levy of 75% premium to regularize transfer of subject lands . It is seen
that Respondent No.1 did not rely upon any Government Resolution to
justify the quantification and imposition of 75% levy for transfer upon
Petitioner and this in itself is a patent illegality on the face of record
which deserves to be dealt with and rejected for all the above reasons.
17. It is seen that Respondent No.1 failed to state any reason,
refer to any law nor rely upon any decision of this Court or of the
Supreme Court to show that levy of premium upon Petitioner is just
and necessary for its failure to take permission of Respondent Nos. 3
21 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
and 4 for transfer of suit lands. No material is placed on record by
Respondents even during hearing of present Petition to show that
application and levy of these premiums upon subject lands is in
accordance with law. It is further seen that Respondent No.1 failed to
consider that Respondent No. 2 being Planning Authority, granted
permission to begin development of subject lands with Commencement
Certificate and even issued partial Occupation Certificate in 2021
therefore Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 ratified Petitioner’s purchase of
subject lands in the revenue records and therefore Respondents now
cannot be allowed to take objection for transfer of subject lands to
Petitioner nor take objection to Petitioner’s failure to change user of
subject lands and granted all permissions to begin development and
allow occupation of the developed structures constructed by the
Petitioner on the subject lands.
18.
Insofar as levy of 100% of ready reckoner valuation for
regularization of change of user to non-agricultural purpose is
concerned, attention is drawn to paragraph No. 13 of the affidavit in
rejoinder dated 15.07.2025 filed by Petitioner appearing at page No.
243 of the Writ Petition wherein Petitioner has made the following
statements:-
"13. I say and reiterate that the land being subject to applicability of
Rule 43 of Bombay Land Revenue Rules 1879 is held in perpetuity and is
freely transferable. In such circumstances, the subject lands shall be subject
to the Government Resolution dated 15/03/2021 whereby the Government
has directed that such lands having B Tenure or any other Tenure shall be
22 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
subject to payment of premium as per Sr. No. 3 of Rule 3 (4) (B) of
Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and
Leasehold lands into Occupancy Class-I lands) Rules, 2019. As per the said
Rules, the Petitioner is ready and willing to forfeit 75% amount of the total
175% amount paid by the Petitioner and seeks refund of the remainder of
the amount."
18.1. From the above, it is seen that insofar as this levy is
concerned, Petitioner has no objection whatsoever if the same stands
recovered from the Petitioner. Even if the Petitioner would have
objected to this levy, Petitioner would have to show whether change of
user to non-agricultural purpose was effected earlier by any of the
predecessors-in-title of the Petitioner. From the above, it is clear that
even though the subject lands changed hands through five different
parties prior to they have purchased by Petitioner, none of those
transactions or holders of the subject lands applied for change of user
to non-agricultural purpose. Petitioner being the developer desires to
develop the subject lands and pursuant to the registered sale deed and
transaction of Petitioner, Petitioner is unable to show the permission
for change of user to non-agricultural purpose. The subject lands
undisputedly were the agricultural lands and were given to the
original lessee / occupants for the specific purpose of plantation of
trees. In that view of the matter, if the Petitioner has developed the
subject lands, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to pay change of user
fee to convert the agricultural land for requisition. This levy is at the
rate of 100% of ready reckoner valuation of the subject lands as
23 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
computed in the impugned order. Petitioner has in the aforesaid
affidavit in rejoinder / pleadings filed in the present Petition agreed to
charged this particular levy of 100% of the ready reckoner valuation
towards change of user to non-agricultural purpose which has been
effected under the impugned order dated 11.11.2020.
19. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings, impugned
order dated 11.11.2020 is partially upheld to the extent of the State
Government being directed to levy 100% market value of the ready
reckoner valuation as on the appointed date on change of user of
subject lands to non-agricultural purpose. To this extent the impugned
order is upheld. However, further levy by the State Government at the
rate of 75% of ready reckoner valuation for regularization of
conveyance as transferred premium stands quashed and set aside.
State Government is therefore directed to retain the amount towards
regularization of change of user of subject lands to non-agricultural
purpose and return back the amount deposited by Petitioner towards
regularization of conveyance as transferred premium to the Petitioner.
Refund shall be effected to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks
from today positively on the basis of server copy of this order without
any further delay whatsoever failing which the State Government will
be liable for appropriate action.
20. Copy of this judgment shall be brought to the notice of the
24 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::
WP.1561.2022.doc
concerned officer of the State Government and more specifically
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for effective compliance by the Government
Pleader of this Court. Learned AGP appearing in the matter is directed
to ensure that the concerned officer of the State is duly informed of
passing of this order for compliance.
21. Petition is partly allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
22. After the above judgement is pronounced, Ms. Nimbalkar
persuades the Court to stay the effect and validity of the judgement to
enable the Government to challenge the same in the Supreme Court.
However, in view of the observations and strong findings given in the
aforesaid judgement, I am not inclined to accept the request made by
Ms. Nimbalkar and the request made by her stands rejected.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally
signed by AJAY
TRAMBAK
UGALMUGALE
Date:
2026.06.08
20:14:22
+0530
AJAY
TRAMBAK
UGALMUGALE
25 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 20:32:23 :::