Notification under Section 88(1)(b) of Tenancy Act operates retrospectively to extinguish deemed purchase rights.

The Petitioners claim their ancestor, Shri Namdeo Mahadu Dalvi, was a protected tenant/deemed purchaser of agricultural land (Survey No. 160/1) in Hadapsar, Pune

On February 14, 1964, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) dropped tenancy proceedings, holding the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ("the Act"), 1948, inapplicable because the land fell within municipal limits

Consequently, the heirs' names were removed from revenue records via Mutation Entry No. 6433

In 2007, forty-three years later, the Petitioners challenged the 1964 order and mutation entry

The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) dismissed the appeal in 2008

In 2012, a Tahsildar separately fixed the purchase price under Section 32G, which was set aside by the SDO in 2016

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dismissed the Petitioners' revisions in 2018, citing an unsatisfactory explanation for the delay and holding the 1964 order binding

1. Whether the statutory purchase under Section 32 of the Act is absolute or subject to other provisions like Section 88(1)(b)

2. Whether a notification under Section 88(1)(b) declaring land for non-agricultural/industrial use operates retrospectively to extinguish deemed purchase rights

3. Whether the ALT order dated February 14, 1964, was a nullity (void ab initio) or merely a legally erroneous order that required a timely challenge

4. Whether the Petitioners provided sufficient cause to condone the multi-decadal delay in challenging the 1964 order

Section 32(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which makes the "deemed purchase" subject to succeeding sections

Section 88(1)(b), which exempts lands reserved by the Government for industrial or non-agricultural development from the Act's "foregoing provisions"

The court followed the precedent in Parvati v. Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad (AIR 1986 SC 2204), which established that Section 88(1)(b) notifications operate retrospectively to make tenancy rights non est

The court also applied the principle from V.S. Charati v. Hussein Nhanu Jamadar (1999 1 SCC 273), distinguishing between a "nullity" and an "erroneous order," holding that the latter is binding unless set aside by a competent forum

The court rejected the Petitioners' argument that the 1964 order was a nullity simply because the tenant had died in 1960. It found that the Petitioners failed to produce the full order or cause title to prove that legal heirs were not on record, thus failing to discharge their burden of proof

On the interaction between Section 32 and Section 88(1)(b), the court observed that the "deemed purchase" is not unconditional but "subject to other provisions" of the Act

Following Parvati, the court held that once the land was notified under Section 88(1)(b), the statutory rights under Chapter III ceased to apply

Regarding the delay, the court noted a 43-year gap in challenging the original order and a lack of diligence even after 2008, specifically noting a year-long delay in applying for certified copies

The court concluded that the MRT’s refusal to condone delay was a plausible view and not arbitrary

It held that the order dated February 14, 1964, was not a nullity and remained binding as it was not challenged within a reasonable timeframe

The court further held that the Petitioners failed to establish "sufficient cause" for the enormous delay in filing the appeal and revision

Consequently, the orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing the revisions were upheld

No order as to costs