A transfer of tribal occupancy without prior Collector sanction under Section 73AA is invalid.

The petitioner sought to restore mutation Entry No. 1295, recording a registered sale deed dated 20 July 2002 for land at Village Javantri, Taluka Talala.

The petitioner had previously entered into an agreement to sell with respondents Nos. 3–6.

Although the Mamlatdar converted the land to old tenure, the order retained the restriction under Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Respondents Nos. 3–6 challenged the mutation, contending that they had not received notice under Section 135D and that the transfer lacked the Collector’s prior sanction.

The Deputy Collector cancelled the entry; the petitioner’s challenges before the Collector and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, were unsuccessful.

The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226

1. Whether mutation Entry No. 1295 could stand when interested persons had not been served notice as required by Section 135D of the Code

2. Whether the sale could support mutation of the petitioner’s name when the Section 73AA restriction was retained and the Collector’s prior sanction had not been obtained

Section 135D(1)(b) and (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code require the designated officer to verify the parties’ identities and lawful rights and to notify persons appearing from the record of rights or mutation register, as well as others believed to be interested; the Court treated service of notice on interested persons as mandatory

Section 73AA restricts transfer of an occupancy held by a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe without the Collector’s previous sanction; the Court held that retaining this restriction meant the conversion to old tenure did not dispense with the sanction requirement

The Court distinguished Chandubha Shivubha Mori & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. because that case involved rights crystallised by a final civil decree, unlike the present case

The Deputy Collector’s finding that notice had been issued to the petitioner and the power-of-attorney holder, but not to respondents Nos. 3–6, was not displaced; the Court held that failure to notify interested persons contravened Section 135D

Separately, the Mamlatdar’s order had retained the Section 73AA restriction, and the record disclosed no prior sanction from the Collector.

Registration of the sale deed by the Sub-Registrar did not cure the absence of that sanction or entitle the petitioner to mutation

The civil-decree precedent relied upon by the petitioner did not apply because the present dispute did not arise from rights settled by a final civil decree.

It dismissed the petition, discharged the Rule, and vacated any interim relief; no order as to costs was made